The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has jurisdiction over the activities encompassed by Permit Application BA-475 (Amended) and, if so, whether issuance of the permit complies with the applicable provisions of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Facts: The following relevant facts are established by stipulation or admission and are not disputed. The proposed project is landward of the seasonal high waterline within thirty (30) years of December 1996; The project will not interfere with public access; The project will not result in the net excavation of in situ sandy soils seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL); Any sandy soil or material excavated for the proposed project seaward of the control line will remain seaward of the control line or setback and be placed in the immediate area of construction; The proposed project complies with the structural provisions of Rule 62B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code; The proposed project complies with Rules 62B-33.007(3)(a) through (d) and (f) through (h), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally at hearing, the Petitioners and Intervenor announced that they would not present any evidence on the issue of adverse impacts on marine turtles. Accordingly, impacts on marine turtles are not at issue in this proceeding. Project Description: RHE has proposed constructing a restaurant, pool, deck and stormwater basin within the Boardwalk Beach Resort on Panama City Beach, in Bay County, Florida. The Boardwalk Beach Resort consists of four (4) multi-story hotels with six hundred (600) rooms all together, several pools, boardwalks extending the length of the property and approximately seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of beach front property. The project site is between Thomas Drive to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. On July 23, 1996, RHE applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct, seaward of the interim line established by the emergency Order of October 16, 1995, the restaurant, swimming pool and deck. Part of the proposed deck was located seaward of the coastal construction setback line. On December 9, 1996, the Department issued a permit to RHE to construct the restaurant building with an attached deck fifteen (15) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as for construction of the swimming pool. On December 16, 1996, the Department issued to RHE an Amended CCCL permit authorizing construction of a restaurant building located five (5) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as a deck re-designed so that it would be structurally independent of the restaurant, a swimming pool and a dune enhancement plan which would restore the sandy dune seaward of the pool and restaurant location to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and elevation. The Amended permit would require re-vegetation of the dunes at the site with native plants to secure the dunes from erosion. Both the original and the Amended permits authorized the removal of the stormwater drainage pipe that carried stormwater onto the beach that had caused erosion of the beach near the project area. On January 9, 1997, the Petitioners timely filed a Petition challenging the Department’s decision to issue the Amended permit. On February 7, 1997, the Department established a new CCCL line for Bay County that was farther landward than either the old coastal construction setback line or the interim line established in the October 1995 emergency order. The project authorized by the Amended permit would thus be located entirely seaward of the newly established CCCL for Bay County. As of February 7, 1997, the date the new line was established, RHE had not begun working on the foundation or continued construction above the foundation for any of the structures authorized by the Amended permit. The Department determined that the project did not meet the requirements of Section 161.053(9), and Rule 62B-33.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, so as to qualify for an exemption from complying with the newly established CCCL for Bay County, as the project was not “under construction” at the time the new CCCL was established. The beach and dunes system is wide and the dune system is a significant one, with elevations of fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) feet NGVD, with a wide dune crest. The dry sandy beach in front of the site, even after hurricane Opal struck, remained approximately one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide. From 1855 to 1934 the shoreline of the site was mildly accretional. Thereafter, until 1955 accretion was less significant, but from 1955 to 1976 became significant. From February 1992 through April 1995, the project site experienced a period of mild erosion. Accordingly the long-term data shows, in essence, that the shoreline is relatively stable at the site. Hurricane Opal caused the dune to erode or retreat landward by approximately a distance of fifteen (15) feet. Hurricane Opal was a major magnitude storm with one hundred twenty-five (125) mile per hour sustained winds and one hundred forty-four (144) mile per hour measured gusts when it came ashore in the vicinity of the proposed site. The dune portion of the proposed site now essentially mimics the pre-Opal conditions. Following hurricane Opal the applicants spent approximately Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) in dune restoration along the entire shoreline of the resort property, some seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of shoreline. That dune restoration work was permitted by the Department. There is now little native salt-tolerant vegetation on the site in its natural pre-construction condition. An existing stormwater drainage pipe and catch basin extend onto the beach seaward of the location of the proposed restaurant. The existing pipe and basin have caused erosion of the beach and the sand dune system on the project site. Under the amended permit proposal the stormwater pipe and basin would be removed. All of the proposed structures authorized by the Amended permit would be landward of the pre-Opal coastal construction control line. The proposed pool will be located landward of the dune crest and fifty-five (55) feet landward of the toe of the dune. The proposed restaurant would also be located landward of the dune crest and two hundred five (205) feet landward of the mean high waterline. The original design of the project was for a much larger, three story restaurant. The original pool design called for a one hundred twenty foot pool extending from in front of the Comfort Inn to beneath the proposed restaurant, in effect being located on the first floor of the restaurant. At DEP’s request the size of the pool was reduced by fifty percent (50%) and it was relocated into the shadow of the Comfort Inn next door so that it will no longer serve as an integral part of the restaurant. Pool depths were also reduced to three (3) feet at DEP’s request. The pool, at DEP’s request, will now be constructed of Gunnite concrete material and will be frangible, that is, it will be designed to break up in storm-surge or storm-waves. This will serve to decrease the erosion which could be caused by storm-waves flowing over and around the pool structure. The same is true of the restaurant deck, which at DEP’s request has been re-designed to be separate from the restaurant and also designed to fail in storm conditions. The frangibility of the deck, as now proposed, will retard erosion during storm conditions, as the stormwater or waves will demolish the deck and remove it rather than scouring the sand dune around it. The Department also requested that the existing stormwater drain pipe and catch basin be removed and such a removal has been made a condition of the subject permit. This will require that the applicant design and build a new stormwater system. The applicant has agreed to this condition and the others referenced above. Vegetation: Construction of the proposed project will not result in the removal or destruction of native vegetation. There is no such vegetation on the site where the construction will take place. Thus, construction of the project will not result in removal or destruction of native vegetation which will either cause de-stabilization of a "frontal, primary or significant dune" or cause a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. A special condition of the proposed amended permit requires that the applicant submit a dune enhancement plan for restoration of the dunes seaward of the pool and restaurant to its pre-hurricane Opal condition, including re-vegetation. Such a plan was submitted by the applicant and it includes the planting of sea oats on one (1) foot centers. The planting of sea oats as part of the dune enhancement plan will constitute a significant improvement to the native vegetation situation at the site. Disturbance of Sandy Soils: The project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dunes system to such a degree as to have an adverse impact on the system. That is, the existing ability of the system to resist erosion during a storm will not be reduced. The proposed project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dune system to such a degree as to cause adverse impact to those systems by lowering existing levels of storm protection to upland properties and structures. All the sandy material excavated for the pool and the stormwater basin will be placed seaward of these structures on the dune in the immediate area of the construction and seaward of the CCCL. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will, in fact, enhance the ability of the system to resist erosion during the storm. The ability of the dune to resist storm erosion is primarily a function of the quantity of sand within the dune system. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will enhance the protection of upland properties and structures including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor. Excavation of the stormwater basin will not destabilize the dune on the project site. The applicant is moving the stormwater basin landward by twenty (20) feet which will minimize the potential impacts of the basin on the dune system. The preponderant evidence establishes that the structure of the pool and pool deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scour of such a magnitude as to measurably affect shoreline change rates. Scour caused by the pool will not significantly interfere with the beach-dune system's ability to recover from a coastal storm. The frangible design of the pool decreases the likelihood that it will cause any scour. It will break up in a storm so that any scour caused by the pool would be minimal. Any scour caused by the pool would not disturb the topography or vegetation such that the coastal system would become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Scour would have no measurable effect. The proposed restaurant and deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scouring during a storm of such a magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact. The restaurant and deck will be constructed on piles. Scouring around piles, in a storm situation, is very localized and insignificant. By constructing the restaurant and deck on piles at the design elevation, storm-surge and storm-waves will pass under the deck and restaurant. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune to permit natural shoreline fluctuations. The structures will be built on pilings and will be elevated above the storm-surge; thus they will not interfere with shoreline fluctuations. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to preserve and protect beach and dune system stability, in terms of the lack of interference with such. Other structures in the area are seaward of the proposed restaurant and deck, including Pineapple Willies Restaurant, located eleven hundred feet to the west. Those structures have not caused instability of the beach during hurricane Opal. Typically, existing structures do not cause instability of the dune systems. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to allow for natural recovery to occur following storm-induced erosion. Natural recovery commonly occurs under pile-supported elevated structures which is not the case with “slab-on-grade” structures which are not elevated. The pool and pool deck will permit natural shoreline fluctuations, will preserve and protect beach and dune stability, and will allow recovery after a storm because they are designed as frangible structures that will fail and disintegrate in a storm situation. Thus they will not appreciably affect the beach-dune system. Line of Construction: Most coastal construction in Bay County extends out to the pre-Opal CCCL while some construction extends beyond it. Throughout Bay County the line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. The line of construction is determined by the most seaward extent of similar existing structures in the immediate area of the proposed structure under consideration in a CCCL permit application. The proposed pool is landward of the line of construction determined by existing pools within the boardwalk beach resort. There are a number of existing multi-story structures to the east of the proposed restaurant that are located out to the pre-Opal CCCL. That pattern of construction continues to the east of the proposed restaurant. Approximately one thousand (1,000) feet to the east of the proposed restaurant is an existing multi-story major structure that is built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The beach in the area of the project is highly developed with commercial and condominium buildings. Within eleven hundred to twelve hundred feet to the west of the proposed restaurant there is another major structure built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. Just beyond that structure are a number of additional major structures, including Pineapple Willie's Restaurant, that are constructed out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The multi-story major structures to the east and west of the proposed structure are within the immediate area of the restaurant. The proposed restaurant is located landward of the line of construction established by these major structures within its immediate area. That line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. DEP did not consider major structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the proposed restaurant when it determined the line of construction for the restaurant. It is DEP’s policy when reviewing CCCL applications not to consider structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from a proposed structure when determining the line of construction. The one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP uses to determine the line of construction is not embodied in a rule. There was no preponderant coastal engineering or other scientific evidence which justifies the one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP imposes when it determines the line of construction. It was appropriate to consider the existing structures referenced above in assessing the line of construction for this amended permit application and considering those lying just beyond the one thousand (1,000) foot distance, because those existing structures dominate the coastal processees in the region and only lie just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet to the east and twelve hundred (1,200) feet to the west. If the Department had considered the above-referenced existing major structures just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet of the proposed restaurant, it would have been shown that the proposed project was landward of the thus established line of construction. No preponderant evidence was offered to explicate why the one thousand (1,000) foot limit was automatically adhered to in this situation. Moreover, the line of construction is not a prohibition in and of itself but rather is only one of several criteria that must be balanced in determining whether or not to approve a CCCL permit application. Projects have been approved seaward of the line of construction in the past. Minimization The location of the swimming pool at the most practicable landward location, the reduced size of the pool, as well as its frangible design and limited depth, has minimized its impact. The placing of the excavated material in the pool’s immediate area and the restoration of the dune in front of the pool and deck have minimized the impacts of the pool and deck. The construction of the restaurant on pilings with its design elevation above storm-surge and storm-wave elevations, together with locating it behind the dune crest and away from the active beach, has minimized the impact of the restaurant. The deck is on pilings as well, elevated above storm-surge and storm-wave levels. It will be physically separate from the restaurant and its design frangibility (so that it will fail in a storm) results in its impact being minimized. The stormwater basin is located as far landward as practicable. Its location and the placing of the materials excavated for the basin on the dune immediately adjacent to the basin has minimized the impact of the proposed stormwater basin on the beach-dune system. The restaurant, pool, deck, and stormwater system will not have a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system. The restaurant will not adversely affect exiting shoreline change rates, will not significantly interfere with recovery following a storm, and will not disturb topography or vegetation such that the system will become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will not have an unacceptable cumulative impact. There are no other proposed similar projects to take into account and a cumulative impact assessment has shown there to be no adverse cumulative impact. No evidence was offered to show that an unacceptable adverse cumulative impact in terms of existing or other proposed projects will result. Positive Benefit The proposed project will have a net positive benefit on the beach-dune system. The removal of the slab-on-grade constructed building will have a beneficial impact because it will reduce the chance of storm erosion to the beach-dune system posed by such structures. The existing stormwater pipe and catch basin which cause erosion would be removed, resolving that erosion problem. Stormwater will now be retained in a new stormwater basin designed to serve 1.7 acres and it will not flow onto the beach for any rainfall event up to a one hundred year design storm. The new stormwater system is designed to recover quickly after a storm event and to treat stormwater. The removal of the stormwater pipe and catch basin, and the installation of the new stormwater basin will have a positive benefit to the beach-dune system. The new stormwater system complies with Special Permit Condition 7. Moreover the applicant will restore the dune seaward of the project to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and will plant sea oats, on one foot centers, throughout the restoration area in accordance with Special Permit Condition 1.8. Such restoration of the dune and vegetation will benefit the beach-dune system. The natural recovery process will take several decades without the placement of sand in the dune restoration project. The dune enhancement plan submitted by the applicant, in order to comply with Special Permit Condition 1.8, exceeds the requirements of that condition since it places more sand on the dunes than necessary to achieve pre-Opal conditions. Testimony of expert witness Michael Walhter, which is accepted, establishes that restored beaches and dunes function much like natural ones in storm events even though they can be somewhat inferior in resistance to storm-surge and waves since the sand is not as compacted at first. This dune enhancement plan, however, exceeds the permit requirements by placing more sand than necessary on the dunes to achieve pre-Opal conditions. The Interim CCCL On October 16, 1995, the DEP issued its emergency Order establishing an interim CCCL for Bay County one hundred feet landward of the pre-Opal CCCL. The Department established that interim line in order to regulate coastal development in the wake of Hurricane Opal. In 1978 the Legislature established criteria to be used by DEP in establishing or re-establishing all CCCL’s. They are thus to be established to define that portion of a beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations from a one hundred year storm event. At the time of Hurricane Opal, DEP had not re-established the Bay County CCCL using a one hundred year storm event criterion. The interim CCCL for Bay County established by the above-referenced emergency Order did not utilize nor was it based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion. All twenty-three (23) other CCCL’s that have been established based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion were established by rule. As of January 15, 1997, the applicant had received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction of the proposed project except for that which is the subject of this proceeding. On January 22, 1997, DEP by letter advised the applicant to cease and desist construction of the project. On February 7, 1997, the Department by rule then taking effect established a new CCCL.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, DETERMINED: That the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over the proposed project and that it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered granting the Respondent, Resort Hospitality’s CCCL application consistent with the terms and conditions espoused by the Final Order of December 17, 1997, Respondent’s Exhibit 2 and the project plans depicted in Respondent’s Exhibits 3 and 4. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bram D. Canter, Esquire 103 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire 1315 East Lafayette Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler and Long, P.A. Post Office Box 839 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0839 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, the county applied to DER for a permit to place approximately 334,000 cubic yards of sand along the southern 2.4 miles of the eastern shoreline of Key Biscayne to create an additional recreational beach for public use and to control beach erosion. The northern limit of the Project area is the southern boundary of Crandon park, the southern limit is the Cape Florida Lighthouse, and the seaward limit is the "design toe of fill", which results in establishing a new mean highwater line at approximately the 1913 shoreline. No fill will be placed along a 1600-foot area along the shore between 1500-feet and 3100-feet north of the lighthouse, where accretion has occurred since 1913. The re-nourished beach is proposed to average approximately 100 feet in width. On October 15, 1980, DER issued a letter of Intent to deny the requested permit. There are approximately 45 acres of sea grass within the Project Area which are proposed to be covered with sand as a result of the project. Sea grass is a major marine resource in Florida, and the anticipated loss of these 45 acres is one of the primary reason DER proposed to deny the permit application. Transects made by the County in December of 1977, and March of 1978, showed that the sea grass in the Project Area varies in density from "sparse" in approximately half of the Project Area to "dense" in approximately ten percent of the Project Area, with the remainder being considered being "medium" in density. Approximately 25 percent of the area to be filled is barren bottom. Sea grasses serve several important functions in the marine ecosystem. They are a vital and productive link in the marine food chain. By cycling energy from the sun into digestible plant material, sea grasses provide food for various organisms which, in turn, are eaten by other organisms in the food chain. Sea grasses assist in maintaining good water quality by causing a baffling effect which improves clarity, and by assimilating the potentially harmful nutrients from the water column. Sea grass roots bind sediments on the sea bottoms, thereby detering erosion. Additionally, sea grass beds function as prime nursery habitat for juvenile fish and other young marine animals as well as spawning grounds for various marine species. Sea grass beds further provide areas for concealment protection and feeding for all types of marine-creatures. Two types of marine sea grasses predominate in the area off Key Biscayne: Syringodium filiforme, or "manatee grass", and Thalassia testudinum, or "turtle grass". The sea grass beds proposed to be filled by this project are dominated by Syringodium filiforme, a long, slender grass which, when compared to turtle grass, offers less refuge to smaller marine animals because its leaves are slender and round and it does not occur in dense groups. In addition, Syringodium filiforme is not as good a soil stabilizer as turtle grass, due primarily to its root structure. It also offers comparatively less surface area for the attachment of epiphytes and algae. A significant portion of the sea grasses in the northern part of the Project Area are ephemeral: that is, they have grown in since 1967, and could very likely be destroyed during a major storm event. It is unlikely that they will be in place for sufficient periods of time to become a major influence on the grain size of the sand in the area, nor will they have a major influence on the long-term sediment dynamics of the area. The 45 acres of sea grass in the Project Area constitute only about two percent of the approximately 2,000 areas of sea grass habitat located immediately to the east of the Project Area. In addition, there are approximately 150,000 acres of sea grass beds lying within that portion of Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida. There is an almost solid belt of turtle grass beginning on the offshore or ocean-side of Key Biscayne extending southward of Key West out to the Merquesas Islands and, with a slight break, to the Dry Tortugas. Unlike Syringodium filiforme, turtle grass serves as a true nursery ground for marine organisms in their early life stages. The portion of the sea grass community proposed to be filled in the Project Area is not a good nursery ground, primarily because of the small amount of turtle grass present. The turtle grass beds present in the Project Area do not constitute a mature stable community comparable to those located slightly farther offshore Key Biscayne. These better turtle grass beds have longer blades that do not show wear from wave action and are covered with epiphytes and other marine organisms. Further, unlike the turtle grass in the Project Area, these beds are dense, with little open space between them, and have little or no other plants growing with them. The sea grass beds in the Project Area are simply not qualitatively as rich as these adjacent beds. These offshore sea grass beds serve as true nursery grounds for marine life. Shrimp and certain game and commercial fish, as examples, are located primarily in nursery grounds in Biscayne Bay and Hawk Channel, where there are more mature and stable turtle grass communities. In light of the extent and condition of the sea grasses in the fill area and the associated sea grass communities both inshore and offshore Key Biscayne, taken together with the design of the overall project as hereinafter described, the total effect of the proposed fill on marine life should be inconsequential. The sand to be placed in the Project Area will be dredged from a borrow area located approximately one mile south of Key Biscayne. This site was selected by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A consultant retained by the County has recommended that certain portions within this borrow area not be used, and that other areas adjacent thereto be utilized if necessary. This modified borrow area falls within the area described in the County's permit application for the source of the fill material. The depth of the sand above the substrate in the borrow area ranges from 1.0 to 9.5 feet, with a substantial portion of the area having in excess of a five-foot depth of sand. Assuming sand will be removed to a depth of five feet, the sand will be taken from approximately a 2,000 by 1,000-foot site. If done in this manner, only about one-third of the borrow area designated by the Corps of Engineers and modified by the County's consultant will be utilized. The entire borrow area designated by the Corps of Engineers contains approximately one million cubic yards of sand. There are no known corals or hard-bottom communities within the proposed borrow area. In addition, there appear to be very few benthic organisms in this area, which is comprised primarily of shifting sand. The benthic organisms that do exist in the area will, of course, be removed during dredging. However, the borrow area can reasonably be expected to repopulate with these organisms as soon as the dredging operation is concluded. Further, the area from which the fill is proposed to be obtained is well removed from any areas of persistent sea grass cover. There are only five or six patches of sea grass in the borrow area, the largest being approximately 12 feet across. These patches do not contain turtle grass and may be easily avoided during dredging. The record in this case clearly establishes that use of the sand from the borrow area should not have an adverse impact on the environment surrounding that area. The sand proposed to be placed on the beach is similar in grain size and composition to the sand that is on the existing beach, owing probably to the fact that it was at one time located on the beach and has been removed through the process of erosion. This sand is of such quality that there should be only minimal turbidity occurring during the dredging operations. There are very small quantities of fine material within the borrow area, and the chemical and physical composition of the sand there closely matches the chemical and physical composition of the sand on the beach. As stipulated by the parties, it is not anticipated that any turbidity problems will result from a physical or chemical breakdown of the material after it is deposited on the beach, and it is also not anticipated that significant long-term turbidity will result from the actual fill being placed on the beach because of the small quantity of fine material contained in the fill. The sand is proposed to be dredged from the borrow area by means of a hydraulic dredge, and transported in a sand/water mixture via pipeline to the Project Area. The sand will be placed on the beach by a method known as longitudinal diking, which permits most of the sand to precipitate before the water returns to the ocean, thereby keeping most of the sand in the Project Area and reducing the impact on receiving waters. The 45 acres of sea grass in the Project Area discussed above will not be covered immediately by fill. This acreage figure represents the total area of sea grass that will be covered after the fill has reached the "theoretical- toe of fill". The theoretical design profile of the beach cannot be achieved immediately because it is not possible to operate the necessary equipment below the waterline. The project design calls for fill to be placed on the beach in a different configuration than will ultimately be obtained, and allows natural wave action to reshape the sand to achieve the design profile. It is anticipated that the entire process will take approximately two years. This is not a unique process, in that the Crandon Park beach immediately north of the Project Area was renourished in a similar fashion in 1969. The Crandon Park design profile was achieved in 1971, and the record establishes that sea grasses offshore Crandon Park were not adversely affected by the sand placed on that beach. Further, no additional fill has been placed on Crandon Park beach since its original renourishment in 1969, and that beach is still very close to the original design profile. The design profile for Crandon Park beach is identical to that proposed for the Project Area. Accordingly, once the design profile for this project is achieved, the greater weight of the evidence in this cause establishes that the sand in the renourished area should not migrate beyond the design toe of fill. A rock structure referred to as the "terminal groin" is proposed to be constructed in connection with the project at the lighthouse at the southern extremity of the beach. The purpose of the terminal grain is to retain the sand placed along the beach. This structure will extend seaward approximately 350 feet, with a top width of seven feet, and top elevations ranging from plus 2.6 feet mean low water at the most seaward location, to plus 7.0 feet mean low water at the beach. The County proposes to modify the slope of the groin to create additional intertidal and subtidal habitat by placing native limestone boulders along the entire 350-foot length of the south side of the groin. By making this modification, approximately 7,000 square feet of subtidal rock habitat will be provided. In addition, this modification will create approximately 36,750 cubic feet of void space for potential marine habitat. The approximate cost of this structure is $200,000. The terminal groin will provide a type of rocky habitat which naturally existed in the Biscayne Bay area, but which has been largely eliminated by man-made improvements. This type of habitat, of course, will not duplicate the type currently provided by the 45 acres of sea grass proposed to be covered by fill. Specifically, rocky habitat does not serve the nursery and breeding functions which sea grasses provide. Further, it neither contributes food stuff by way of primary productivity nor cycles energy into the marine ecosystem in the same manner as sea grasses. The County, in fact, had at one time considered replanting sea grass to mitigate for the loss of the grass communities in the Project Area, but abandoned that alternative in view of the existing large areas of sea grass adjacent to the project, and the fact that the barren bottoms in the Project Area and in adjacent areas have occurred as a result of high wave energy. As a result, it was felt that any attempt to replant the sea grasses by way of mitigating the effect of the proposed project would be unsuccessful. With a properly designed terminal structure, the renourished beach should last approximately 30 years. The rate of erosion on the beach when the project is concluded should approximate 15,000 cubic yards per year. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the beach would require renourishing in less than ten years following the project. As noted above, the Crandon Park beach was restored in excess of 12 years ago, has not been renourished, and still is very close to the original design profile. Sea turtles nest at Bill Baggs State Park and at Crandon Park. The record in this case establishes that these turtle nests can be fairly easily found and relocated. The Corps of Engineers has a turtle protection program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under which contractors on beach renourishment projects are required to relocate turtle nests, utilizing persons licensed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Dade County also has a turtle relocation program which is currently being utilized in Crandon Park. The record in this case does not establish that the proposed beach renourishment project will adversely affect the nesting of sea turtles within either the Project Area or areas adjacent thereto. Extensive erosion has occurred on the beaches on the eastern shore of Key Biscayne. It is currently not possible, for example, to walk from one end of the beach on Key Biscayne to the other without climbing seawalls and jetties, since portions of the beach are completely under water at all times except during extremely low tidal periods. A substantial portion of the project Area is completely submerged even during low tide. The Hearing Officer personally viewed the extent of the erosion in the Project Area. The placement of fill in the northern 1.2 miles of the project will create public access between Bill Baggs State Park and Crandon Park, which is maintained by Dade County. The project will also create a public beach where currently none exists eastward of the proposed erosion control line for the northern 1.2 miles of the project. Beach renourishment will provide support for and stabilize the restored beach on Crandon Park, thereby enabling that beach to last longer, and will also provide erosion control for the entire length of the eastern shoreline of Key Biscayne. The project, as designed, will protect against a ten-year storm of 24-hour duration, thereby helping to diminish serious injury to property and persons by reason of violent storms. Additional protection will also be provided to the Cape Florida lighthouse, a State historical landmark. Although not a hurricane surge protection project, the beach renourishment program will provide some degree of protection from hurricanes. More protection is provided to upland structures by increasing the distance between them and adjacent water bodies. Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources has determined that severe beach erosion has occurred along the southern 2.4 miles of Key Biscayne, and that the beach either has been or will be destroyed in the immediate future unless a publicly financed program is undertaken. In 1978, and in 1979, the Florida Legislature appropriated funds for the project, and additional funding has also been approved by the Governor and Cabinet. Tourism is Florida's largest industry. In 1980, approximately 35.9 million visitors spent $17 billion in the State of Florida, generating $785 million in tax revenues and supplying employment for 535,000 people directly employed in the tourist industry. There are primarily four reasons that visitors come to the State of Florida: (1) rest and relaxation; (2) beaches; (3) climate; and (4) other attractions, primarily manmade. Over 60 percent of the visitors to Florida have indicated that beaches are their primary reason for visiting the State of Florida. In 1980, 12.6 million tourists visited Dade County. Of these, 10.3 million were domestic tourists, and 2.3 million were international tourists. these tourists spent a total of $9.5 billion in Dade County, making the tourist industry by far Dade County's largest single industry, directly accounting for 25 percent of employment in Dade County. In 1950, over $4.77 million were collected in the taxable areas of Dade County by imposition of a resort tax of two percent on hotels and motels for transients. Tourism on Key Biscayne contributed approximately $300,000 to the Dade County resort tax collection, which is 6.2 percent of the total tax collection for 1980. 57.2 percent of the domestic tourists in Dade County came to Dade County because of the beaches. Tourists visiting other sections of Dade County used the beaches on Key Biscayne because they are very convenient and pleasing. During the course of this proceeding, the deposition of Dr. Anitra Thorhaug was taken by Petitioners, and the parties have requested that the Hearing Officer, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 28-5.208, Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 1.390, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, determine a fair and reasonable expert witness fee to be paid to Dr. Thorhaug for her deposition. Having considered the submissions of the parties on this issue, including the actual time spent in deposition of two hours and 55 minutes, and the total time of 4.5 hours devoted by Dr. Thorhaug to the taking of her deposition, it is determined that a reasonable fee for her services is $350.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) has demonstrated its entitlement to place dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the East Pass (“East Pass” or “inlet”) entrance channel conducted pursuant to Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) Permit Modification No. 0288799-006-JN (“Permit Modification”), as amended by the DEP’s August 21, 2019, Notice of Proposed Changes to Proposed Agency Action (“Proposed Change”) in the nearshore zone east of East Pass; and whether the East Pass Inlet Management Plan (“East Pass IMP”) is an unadopted rule as described in section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Thomas Wilson, resides at 856 Edgewood Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, and owns a secondary residence at 1530 Miracle Strip Parkway, No. 101-B, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, which is on Santa Rosa Island in the unincorporated community of Okaloosa Island1, and fronts the Gulf of Mexico. Petitioner’s property is in the vicinity of Monument R-14, which is roughly 2.3 miles west of DEP Virtual Monument V-611, and 4.3 miles west of the west side of East Pass. Mr. Wilson uses and enjoys the gulf-front beaches between his property in Okaloosa Island and East Pass. Intervenors, David H. Sherry and Rebecca R. Sherry, own Unit 511 at the Surf Dweller Condominium, 554 Coral Court, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, fronting the Gulf of Mexico and in the Okaloosa Island community. 1 Okaloosa Island is the name of an unincorporated community that stretches about 2.8 miles along Santa Rosa Island from DEP reference monument R-1 through R-16, and is across Santa Rosa Sound from the mainland community of Ft. Walton Beach. Okaloosa Island is the name of the unincorporated community, while Santa Rosa Island is the name of the much longer island of roughly 40 miles in length, which includes U.S. Air Force/Eglin AFB property that extends from the Okaloosa Island community to East Pass. The Surf Dweller Condominium straddles DEP Reference Monument R-7, which is between three and four miles west of DEP Virtual Monument V-611, and is between five and six miles west of the west side of East Pass. The Sherrys use the beach at their condominium on a daily basis for fishing, crabbing, swimming, walking, running, and general recreation. They also walk or run from Monument R-7 along the beaches to East Pass, and occasionally drive to and use the beaches on the east side of East Pass. Intervenor, John S. Donovan, owns Units 131 and 132 at the El Matador Condominium, 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, fronting the Gulf of Mexico and in the Okaloosa Island community. The El Matador Condominium is approximately five miles west of Monument V-611, and is more than six miles west of the west side of East Pass. Mr. Donovan generally walks the beaches west of his condominium, but does occasionally walk along the beach to Monument V-607, which is the location of a seawall constructed by the Air Force on sovereign submerged lands to protect an Air Force tracking facility. Petitioners’ residential properties do not abut either the area established as the zone of influence of East Pass or the stretch of beach that is adjacent to the west fill placement site. Petitioners’ stated injuries are related to the allegation that the lateral movement of sand from the East Pass area of influence is from east to west. Placing dredged material in the eastern disposal site would allegedly deprive the beaches in front of their property -- beaches that are miles from the nearest area of influence or spoil disposal site -- of their natural sand supply by cutting off what they allege to be the natural sand flow, causing the beaches in front of their properties to eventually erode. Petitioners alleged no immediate environmental injuries associated with the Permit Modification. Petitioners’ stated objective in this case is to have any sand dredged from East Past to be placed on the western disposal areas at all times. Respondent, DEP, is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes, having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62 and 62B, regarding activities in surface waters of the state. DEP has been designated by the legislature as the beach and shore preservation authority for the State of Florida and is authorized to take all necessary initiatives to implement the provisions of chapter 161. See § 161.101, Fla. Stat. DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Permit Modification at issue in this proceeding to the Corps. Respondent, the Corps, is a federal agency responsible for maintenance dredging of East Pass, and is the applicant for the Permit Modification. The Corps and DEP are parties to an Interagency Agreement pursuant to which the Corps has agreed that for joint coastal permits, beach compatible dredged material shall be disposed on Florida’s beaches consistent with chapter 161 and other beneficial use criteria specified by the Department and federal standards. Pursuant to the Interagency Agreement, if DEP determines that a permit modification is required to meet state standards, as was the case here, the Corps agrees to apply for and obtain the modification. Intervenor, Destin, is a municipality in Okaloosa County, Florida, and abuts the east side of East Pass. Intervenor, Okaloosa County, is the local sponsor of the federally authorized East Pass Navigation Project. It has a substantial interest in the safety and navigability of the East Pass Navigation Channel and its protection from effects of tropical storm systems. Okaloosa County also has a substantial interest in preserving its recreational and environmental resources. The Permit Modification was issued on November 14, 2016, without publication, or a notice of rights language regarding the right to request a hearing or time limits for doing so. Petitioner, Mr. Wilson, alleged that he received a copy of the Permit Modification on or after May 22, 2019. There was no evidence to the contrary. He, thereafter, filed a challenge with DEP on June 5, 2019, no more than 14 days from the date on which he received notice. East Pass The issue in dispute in this case, as it was in 19-1844, is the determination of whether beaches adjacent to the East Pass inlet are eroding, stable, or accreting, for purposes of meeting the statutory objective of section 161.142. Prior to 1928, the connection from Choctawhatchee Bay to the Gulf of Mexico flowed through what is now Old Pass Lagoon. After a storm in 1928, a high-tide breach of the shoreline near the current location of East Pass was formed. In 1929, a record rain event caused waters to rise in Choctawhatchee Bay. Residents of the area dug a relief channel at roughly the present location of East Pass. The waters releasing through the more hydraulically efficient flow path from Choctawhatchee Bay established a channel, which quickly enlarged to become the prominent inlet to the Gulf of Mexico. The permanent channel, now known as East Pass, is the only navigable passage from Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intercoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico between Panama City, Florida, and Pensacola, Florida. East Pass separates the gulf-fronting beaches of Destin to its east from the beaches owned by the United States as part of Eglin Air Force Base to the west. The entrance to East Pass is protected by two boulder-mount jetties: a 3,860 foot-long jetty on the west side of the inlet, and a 1,210 foot-long jetty on the east side of the inlet. East Pass includes a federal navigation channel. The federal navigation channel requires routine maintenance to prevent it from shoaling. On average, East Pass is dredged in two-year intervals. The last time that East Pass was dredged was in December of 2013. It has now shoaled with sand. Although there was a suggestion that recent storms may have opened the channel to some extent, the evidence was not sufficient to alter the findings based on the 19-1844 record that the channel remains hazardous for marine traffic. East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan The East Pass IMP was adopted by Final Order of DEP on July 30, 2013. The East Pass IMP does not require that any quantity of dredged material from the dredging of East Pass be placed at any particular location other than as established in permits issued by DEP. Rather, disposal sites are to be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the best monitoring data available for the beaches in the area of influence of East Pass. Areas of influence are the beach areas east and west of East Pass affected by tidal forces generated by the inlet. The critical element of the East Pass IMP, and that in keeping with the statutory requirement that sand be placed on “adjacent eroding beaches” is the “strategy” that “the recent erosion of adjacent beaches observed over a minimum of five years shall define the placement need in terms of location and volume.” The Permit Modification On October 28, 2009, DEP issued Permit No. 0288799-001-JC to the Corps to perform maintenance dredging of the East Pass Navigation Channel and the Old Pass Lagoon Channel, and to rehabilitate the eastern and western jetties. Materials dredged from the Main Channel south of the U.S. Highway 98 bridge would be primarily bypassed to a portion of the beach on Eglin Air Force Base west of East Pass. As originally issued, the 2009 Permit limited placement of dredged sand to sites west of the inlet, and prohibited placement to the east of the inlet. Contrary to the 2008 amendment to section 161.142 and the 2013 East Pass IMP, the 2009 Permit did not require that sand dredged from the federal navigation channel be placed on the adjacent eroding beach, nor did it extend the life of the proximate West Destin Beach Restoration Project. The Corps requested the Permit Modification in furtherance of an inter-agency agreement between DEP and the Corps, by which the Corps agreed, to the best of its abilities, to act in a manner consistent with state requirements. Pursuant to section 161.142(5), beach compatible sand dredged from federal navigation channels is to be placed on the adjacent eroding beach. On November 14, 2016, DEP issued the Permit Modification to the Corps. The Permit Modification did not change the authorization or requirements for the dredging, but allowed dredged material to be placed on “the Gulf-front beaches on the eastern and western sides of East Pass.” On August 21, 2019, DEP filed the Proposed Change, which amended the Permit Modification to require that “[b]each compatible material dredged from the initial maintenance dredge event following issuance of [the Permit Modification], shall be placed to the east of East Pass.” The Permit Modification provides that, for the first maintenance dredging event following issuance of the Permit Modification, dredged material is to be placed at fill sites east of East Pass, the condition that Petitioners’ find objectionable. The Permit Modification then provides that “[f]or all subsequent maintenance dredging events conducted under this permit, disposal locations shall be supported by physical monitoring data of the beaches east and west of East Pass in order to identify the adjacent eroding beaches that will receive the maintenance dredged material, providing consistency with section 161.142, Florida Statutes.” Thus, the placement of dredged material to the east of East Pass authorized by the Permit Modification applies to the next dredging event, and not necessarily to subsequent periodic dredging events authorized by the Permit Modification. Fill Placement Site The eastern fill placement site authorized by the Permit Modification extends from R-17 to R-20.5. The shoreline adjacent to the eastern fill placement site has been designated as critically eroded for more than ten years. The eastern fill placement site is within the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project and designated as “Reach 1.” The fill placement site west of East Pass is located between V-611 and V-622. The shoreline landward of the western fill site has not been designated as critically eroded by the Department. There are no current beach restoration projects in or adjacent to the western fill site. East Pass is an ebb tide dominated inlet, with a sizable amount of sediment moving in and out. When outgoing tidal flow moves though the constriction formed by the jetties, flow velocities are accelerated. When the water, and any entrained sediment, passes the jetties, flow tends to spread out to the east, west, and south, and naturally loses velocity. When the outgoing tidal waters reach a critical velocity where they can no longer carry the sand, the sand drops out of suspension, which forms the ebb shoal. Essentially, the ebb shoal is a large, semi-circular sandbar extending from the mouth of East Pass that was created by the ebb tide carrying sediments south. East Pass is a highly dynamic inlet system. There are processes spurred by the configuration and location of East Pass, tides, waves, and storms that have resulted in currents running to the east and west that change on a frequent basis. The evidence in this proceeding, which includes the evidence adduced in 19-1844, established, for the period of 1996 through 2007, “a trend of west to east longshore transport, resulting in net gain immediately west of [East Pass] and a significant loss of sand along Holiday Isle east of [East Pass].” The evidence further established that a “drift nodal point” existed at East Pass. Longshore transport at uniform coastal locations is generally in one direction. However, when there are wave events coming from varying angles, and where beach contours are not parallel and uniform, or even linear, it is common for transport reversals to occur. The point at which those reversals occur is referred to as a nodal point. That point can be where east and west transport converges, or where it diverges. The shoreline in the vicinity of East Pass has exhibited “quite a few” nodal points over the past decade, resulting in frequent drift reversals and sand transport to the east and the west. The evidence as to the existence and effect of the East Pass drift nodal point, and its effect on the lateral transport of sand in the area, including the East Pass areas of influence, was substantiated by testimony and other evidence introduced at the final hearing. The testimony and evidence that there is no consistent direction of lateral sand transport in the vicinity of East Pass, and no predominant lateral current transporting sand in a westerly direction, is accepted. Competent substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding includes monitoring data for the eastern beach placement areas from the West Destin Four-Year Post-construction Monitoring Report and earlier annual post-construction reports covering the period from October 2012 to July 2017; data from the Holiday Isle Emergency Beach Fill Two-Year Post- construction Report; historical monitoring data for the area west of East Pass, including the Western Beach Monitoring Report, which covered 2006 to 2017; the Potential Borrow Area Impact Report, which included data from 1996 through 2012; and recent profile data from April 2019. These reports, and the data contained within them, cumulatively provide more than 20 years of data, and demonstrate convincingly that the shoreline to the west of East Pass has been stable or accreting, and the areas to the east are eroded. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches east of East Pass exhibit the following signs of significant and ongoing erosion: extensive dune erosion; exposed sea oat roots; reduced beach elevation; reduced beach width; crenulate2 bays; newly built dune walkovers that replaced old walkovers claimed by erosion; dune walkovers in close proximity to the shoreline, indicating that the shoreline had receded to the walkover; and beach scarping at the shoreline indicating active erosion. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the eastern spoil disposal sites was convincing and is accepted. The eastern areas of influence are currently designated to be “critically eroded” by DEP, a designation maintained for more than 10 years. The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches east of East Pass, and the persuasive testimony offered by Mr. Clark, Mr. Trammell, Mr. Garis, and Mr. Trudnak (who testified in 19-1844), collectively establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches east of East Pass, including the eastern area of influence and the proposed dredge material disposal sites at Monuments R-17 to R-20.5, except for the area immediately abutting the eastern jetty, are critically eroded, a condition that is influenced by East Pass and its navigational channel, and are “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. The evidence demonstrates that the shoreline of Santa Rosa Island to the west of East Pass has historically been stable. To be sure, as is the case with any shoreline, there will be some areas of erosion and some areas of accretion. After Hurricanes Ivan and Opal, areas of Santa Rosa Island experienced erosion. DEP declared the shoreline to be critically eroded after the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons, which prompted Okaloosa County to commission a study to monitor the health of the Monuments R-1 through R-16 beach segment, a segment that includes Petitioners’ residences. Despite the fact that no post-storm beach restoration occurred in the area, the beach recovered naturally and gained sand following the post-storm recovery. In addition, Santa Rosa Island is known for “beach cusps,” which are crenulate 2 “Having an irregularly wavy or serrate outline.” See “crenulate,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/crenulate (last visited February 2, 2020). shapes along the shoreline. Depending on the season and storm conditions, those beach cusps can have a localized erosive effect on the beach, but those tend to be seasonal. They do not negate what the evidence shows to be the overall stable to accretional conditions of the beaches west of East Pass from Monument V-622 to Petitioners’ residences. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches west of East Pass have large dunes; multiple dune lines; tall and thickly vegetated dunes indicating established dune growth; pioneering vegetation indicating active, healthy dune growth and accretion; partially buried signs indicating dune advance; and broad and expansive beaches. Those features are indicative of a stable and accretional shoreline. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the western spoil disposal site was convincing and is accepted. At present, the Santa Rosa Island shoreline is not deemed by DEP to be “critically eroded.” Mr. Trammel’s photographs offered in 19-1844 were supplemented by a series of photographs taken from several of the same locations after the passage of Tropical Storm Nestor in October 2019. Those photographs are consistent with a finding that the beaches to the east of East Pass are highly eroded and erosional, and that the beaches to the west of East Pass are not. The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches west of East Pass, and the testimony offered at the final hearing, which collectively establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches to the west of East Pass are stable and accretional, are not subject to erosion caused by East Pass, and are not “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. Petitioners offered testimony of Dr. Douglas and Dr. Young in an effort to shore up weaknesses in the evidence offered in 19-1844. Their testimony and the evidence discussed therein was largely, if not exclusively designed to demonstrate that the direction of lateral sand transport in the vicinity of East Pass was predominantly east to west, which was the prevailing theme of Petitioners’ argument in 19-1844. The evidence adduced from Dr. Douglas was, in many respects, cumulative of that previously offered by Dr. Walton in 19-1844, and considered in the development of the Recommended Order in that case. For example, both Dr. Walton and Dr. Douglas reviewed and assessed information from the Taylor study, the Morang study, and the CP&E report in developing their opinions. Both agreed that sand placed in proximity to the jetties would tend to stay in place. Both ultimately concluded that sand placed to the west of the East Past west jetty would migrate to the west. Dr. Douglas offered new opinion testimony largely based on the Wave Information Study (“WIS”), which is an estimate of wave height and direction from a location two miles off-shore of East Pass. The data is a mathematical estimate, and does not rely on physical measurements from buoys or wave gauges. The wave estimates were then used as inputs in a model developed by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (“CERC”). Dr. Douglas candidly testified that the CERC model, even with normal input data, involves a substantial degree of uncertainty -- up to an order of magnitude. Adding to that uncertainty is that the CERC model assumes bottom contours and offshore volume calculations that were either inapplicable to the area around East Pass, or unavailable. Dr. Douglas was convincing that the CERC model is a tool commonly used by coastal engineers. His testimony, and the evidence on which it was based, was not unreasonable. However, it was not sufficient to outweigh the evidence introduced in support of the Permit Modification. In particular, and in addition to the evidence and testimony introduced in 19-1844, the testimony of Mr. Clark, whose extensive and direct knowledge, observations, and familiarity with the area, and of the data and information collected over periods of years, is found to be more persuasive regarding the processes and conditions in and around East Pass, and supports a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the area to the east of East Pass constitutes “adjacent eroding beaches,” and that the area to the west of East Pass does not. Similarly, the evidence adduced from Dr. Young was largely cumulative, a fact that resulted in sustained objections to questions eliciting such information. He did provide testimony regarding time-lapse images from Google Earth Engine, and a critique on how to balance a sediment budget, though without providing a budget. As was the case with Dr. Douglas, Dr. Young’s testimony and the evidence discussed therein, was not sufficient to outweigh the more persuasive evidence introduced in support of the Permit Modification that the area to the east of East Pass constitutes “adjacent eroding beaches,” and that the area to the west of East Pass does not. The evidence is persuasive that placing dredged material at R-17 to R-20.5 in Holiday Isle on the eastern side of East Pass would not result in erosion on the western side of East Pass. Dredged material placed in the western beach placement area, and in the “shadow” of the western jetty, will tend to remain in that area. It would take a very long time, if at all, for that material to migrate further to the west. However, some -- but certainly not all -- of the dredged material placed on the eroding beaches to the east of East Pass can be introduced into the ebb shoal and move to the west. In that regard, the Google Earth Engine images depict sand moving across the ebb shoal to the western side of the inlet and attaching at various distances from the west jetty. As such, placement of the dredged material on the eastern beach placement areas would, to some degree, accomplish the goals of allowing sand transport to the western beaches, as was the relief sought in the Petition. The evidence was convincing that depositing dredged material onto the eroding beaches east of East Pass, as authorized by the Permit Modification, will not result in significant adverse impacts to areas either east or west of East Pass, nor will it interfere with the use by the public of any area of a beach seaward of the mean high-water line. Furthermore, the evidence introduced in this case and 19-1844 provide reasonable assurance that the Permit Modification is consistent with section 161.142 and will ensure that net long-term erosion or accretion rates on both sides of East Pass remain equal. Ultimate Findings of Fact The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the eastern areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at R-17 to R-20.5, are critically eroded, a condition influenced, if not caused, by East Pass, and constitute East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the western areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at Monuments V-611 to V-622, are stable, if not accreting, and are not East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the placement of dredged material on the eastern side of East Pass will extend the life of the proximate West Destin Beach Restoration Project. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the Corps met the standards for the Permit Modification as proposed for issuance by DEP on November 14, 2016, and August 21, 2019, including section 161.142 and rules 62B-41.003 and 62B-41.005. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. Thus, the Permit Modification should be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the November 14, 2018, Permit Modification No. 0288799-006-JN, as amended by the DEP’s August 21, 2019, Notice of Proposed Changes to Proposed Agency Action, for the maintenance dredging of East Pass, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Alexander Brown, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) D. Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Marianna Sarkisyan, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 (eServed) Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 (eServed) Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 (eServed) Winifred L. Acosta, Esquire United States Attorney's Office Northern District Florida 21 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5676 (eServed) Kathryn Drey, Esquire United States Attorney's Office Northern District Florida 21 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5676 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Timothy Joseph Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Carley J. Schrader, Esquire Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The subject property Petitioners, Michael and Janice Rush, are the owners of a single family residence located at 3032 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Such residence lies seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and is therefore subject to the permitting jurisdiction of respondent, Department of Natural Resources (Department). Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. The first application In April 1991, Petitioners filed a permit application (Permit File No. BO-267) with the Department for permission to renovate their home and construct a swimming pool. That application was found to be incomplete, and by letter of April 17, 1991, the Department notified petitioners of the information required to complete their application. Following receipt and review of the requested information, the Department, by letter of July 26, 1991, advised petitioners that, as proposed, their application to construct a pool and renovate the home would have to be denied. Pertinent to the proposed pool, such letter observed that a portion of the pool would be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection which is prohibited 1/, the general construction line of major structures would be advanced further seaward, adverse impacts to the beach/dune system during a major storm event could be expected, and cumulative adverse impacts could be expected. Thereafter, by letter of August 14, 1991, the Department was advised that petitioners were submitting new house plans for the subject property, and that the request for leave to construct the pool had been removed from their application. 2/ On December 23, 1991, the Department issued a final order in Permit File No. BO-267 which authorized the petitioners to remodel their home. Such final order observed: . . . The direct and cumulative impacts to the beach and dune system that will be caused by both the seaward location and shore- parallel width of the proposed construction represent the maximum such impacts that are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, future construction on the site seaward of the coastal construction control line shall not extend further seaward of, or increase the shore- parallel coverage occupied by, the proposed structures approved pursuant to this permit. The pool, which petitioners had initially proposed to construct seaward of the home, but subsequently deleted from their plans, constituted a major structure, albeit nonhabitable. Rule 16B-33.002(54)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners were expressly advised by the Department of their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the provisions of the final order. No such contest was filed. 3/ The pending application On February 20, 1992, petitioners filed a new application (Permit File NO. BO-289) with the Department for permission to construct the swimming pool on their property. As proposed, the pool would be located in the beach-dune system seaward of petitioners' home, as well as seaward of an existing retaining wall on the petitioners' property. The pool would measure 16.0' x 35.7' externally, be constructed of reinforced gunite, and be supported by ten piles. The alignment of the pool would be in the shore parallel direction, rather than the shore normal direction as proposed in the prior application, thereby placing the pool landward of the 30-year erosion projection. By letter of March 8, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their application was incomplete, and requested additional information. Petitioners submitted the final information necessary to complete their application on July 21, 1992. By letter dated October 7, 1992, received by petitioners' representative on October 13, 1992, the Department issued a public notice as follows: The referenced application for a permit pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, has been placed on the agenda of the head of the Department of Natural Resources (Governor and Cabinet). The application will be reviewed by the Cabinet Aides in the Cabinet Meeting Room on the lower level of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 14, 1992. The application will then be heard by the Governor and Cabinet in Room LL03 of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 20, 1992. You may attend these meetings if you desire. The recommendation [for denial] shown on the enclosed agenda item has been made to the head of the Department by the Executive Director. This represents an agency determination. . . . The notice, consistent with the provisions of Rule 16B-33.012(8), Florida Administrative Code, further advised that any substantially affected person had the right to request a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within 21 days of receipt of the notice, and that "If the decision of the Governor and Cabinet is different from the staff recommendation as noticed . . ., then the applicant or any substantially affected person shall have 21 days from the date of the Governor and Cabinet's announcement of their decision in which to petition the agency for a hearing." The basis for the Department's denial of petitioners' application to construct the swimming pool was stated as follows: The proposed swimming pool is not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available. For example a similar structure could be sited in a less impactive location landward of the single-family dwelling on the southwest corner of the property. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Paragraph 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Rule 16B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shore line fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion. The proposed swimming pool is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system. * * * 8. The proposed project is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. The Department, therefore, may not authorize the construction of the pool. On October 13, 1992, petitioners requested that their application be removed from the agenda, and be rescheduled for "a later date to be determined." The rationale for petitioners' request was to afford "an opportunity for the permittee and staff to meet in Tallahassee in early to mid November and reach a design for a pool which can be recommended favorably by staff." By letter of October 14, 1992, the Department granted petitioners' request and the item was removed from the agenda for the Governor and Cabinet meeting of October 20, 1992. Such letter further provided that although the Department was willing to meet with petitioners to discuss the staff concerns about their application, that it "must caution you . . . that at this time I do not anticipate that a swimming pool, as you requested, can be satisfactory [sic] located seaward of your home." Petitioners and the Department were unable to resolve their dispute. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition on November 2, 1992, to contest the proposed denial of their application. By letter of November 13, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their request for formal administrative hearing was inadequate, but accorded them 14 days from receipt of such letter to submit an appropriate request. Petitioners timely submitted an appropriate request for hearing on November 30, 1992, and the matter was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 4/ The merits of the pending application As heretofore noted in the findings of fact, the Department enunciated seven reasons to support its denial of petitioner's application. The first basis for denial was the Department's assertion that the proposed swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available." In this regard, it is observed that Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: . . . Establishment of a coastal construction control line . . . does not preclude all development of or alteration of coastal property seaward of such lines. However, activities seaward of a coastal construction control line . . . shall be limited and the necessity of such development, construction or alteration shall be stated and clearly justified by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid rule does not further explain what is contemplated by the requirement that the applicant clearly justify the "necessity" of the proposed development; however, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary. 5/ In this regard, "necessity" is defined to mean "something that cannot be done without." Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. It is also defined as "something needed for the existence, effectiveness, or success of something (a requirement)," and "the state or fact of being required or unavoidable." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct the swimming pool since it fails to credibly support the conclusion that such construction is required for the effective or reasonable use of petitioners' property or that such construction is essential for the well-being of its occupants.6/ To the contrary, the petitioners' decision to construct the pool is merely a matter of personal preference or convenience. Moreover, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct a pool of the size and configuration proposed (16' x 35.7' with a maximum depth of 8') or of the materials selected (reinforced gunite supported by piles). Indeed, a pool of a different configuration or size could be located elsewhere on the property and the pool could be constructed on a base slab foundation or of vinyl to alleviate the adverse effects of its current design, discussed infra. 7/ As further reasons for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade"; Rule 16B-33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties"; Rule 16B- 33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion"; and Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, "to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system." Pertinent to the aforesaid reasons for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the "Department Policy Statement on Permits," provides: Seaward of the coastal construction control line . . ., special siting, structural and other design considerations are required: (a) for the protection of the beach-dune system; * * * (c) for the protection of adjacent properties. And, Rule 16B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code, the "Structural and Other Requirements Necessary for Permit Approval," provides: The proposed structure or other activity shall be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery following storm induced erosion . . . . All structures shall be designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach-dune system or adjacent properties and structures and shall be designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. Relevant to such rules, the proof demonstrates that the frontal dune on the subject property appears to have been leveled at an elevation of approximately +12.0 feet NGVD, and petitioners' home is located on top of the crest of the frontal dune. The seaward slope of the frontal dune begins at the seaward face of the house and slopes down to the beach. Approximately 12 feet seaward of the house is an existing retaining wall. The proposed pool will be sited immediately seaward of such wall and therefore on the seaward slope of the frontal dune. The proposed pool is a pile supported concrete swimming pool with exterior dimensions of 16.0' shore-normal by 35.7' shore-parallel, and a maximum depth of 8.0'. The foundation is specified to be auger-cast piles, which will penetrate to an elevation of -23.0' NGVD or 3' embedment where a rock layer is encountered. The elevation of the pool is proposed at +13.0' NGVD, with a bottom elevation of +4.0' NGVD. As designed and sited, construction of the pool would destabilize the dune, hinder its function of protecting upland development during a storm event, and adversely affect natural shoreline fluctuation and recovery following storm induced erosion. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the location of the pool seaward of the existing retaining wall would interrupt the natural continuity of dune formation because sand would accumulate seaward of the pool in a less stable location and would impede the accumulation of sand on adjacent properties. Construction of the pool, as designed and sited, would also induce scour during the course of a storm event impacting the structure. Such storm- induced scour, in addition to erosion, would cause the loss of additional sand at the vicinity of the structure, robbing the beach-dune system of additional sand necessary to protect upland structures, and would also contribute to the potential failure of the structure itself and other upland structures. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sand would be lost on petitioners' section of the beach in the event of a 10-year storm. Additionally, structure-induced scour of 77.5 cubic yards from the ten piles, 120.4 cubic yards from the pool shell, and 15.8 cubic yards from the "end effects" of the pool (the amount of structure-induced scour from the ends of the structure) might reasonably be anticipated in the event of a 10-year storm. If the pool were to be impacted by a higher frequency storm, such as a 20-year or a 100-year storm, scour and erosion would increase. 8/ As an additional basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, "because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area." Here, the proof supports the Department's conclusion. As its final basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, "because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event." Pertinent to the aforesaid basis for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site; however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event . . . . Here, petitioners' project is expected to have significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system as a consequence of its design and siting. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant. Moreover, there was no proof concerning any similar structures along the coast, existing or proposed, that would contribute to or intensify the degradation of the beach-dune system occasioned by the proposed project. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that cumulative impact is a relevant issue in these proceedings. While cumulative impact is not relevant to the pending application, the other reasons advanced by the Department for denial of the application have, as heretofore found, a rational basis in fact. Under such circumstances, petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioners' application to construct seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November 1993.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Squeeze Me Inn, LLC, is a limited liability corporation incorporated in the State of Florida. Kurt Kroemer is its managing member. Squeeze Me Inn, LLC, owns a single-family home at 8170 Estero Boulevard in Fort Myers Beach, Florida, and pays taxes on the property. Mr. Kroemer purchased the property through Squeeze Me Inn, LLC, based on his enjoyment of the beach. He visits the property five times per year on average, and intends to retire there. Texas Hold’Em, LLC, is a limited liability company incorporated in the State of Florida. Edward Rood is its managing member. Texas Hold’Em, LLC, owns a single-family home at 8150 Estero Boulevard in Fort Myers Beach, Florida, and pays taxes on the property. Mr. Rood uses the home four to five times per year. He enjoys visiting the Gulf of Mexico and the adjacent beach area behind his house. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and has issued the Consolidated Permit, the CCCL Waiver, and the CCCL Permit at issue in this proceeding to the Applicants. DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under chapter 373, part IV, for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. DEP has been delegated the authority to take action, without any input from BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under chapter 373, part IV, for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). Audubon is an organization incorporated in the State of Florida. Audubon has roughly 20,000 members statewide, and 5,000 members in Southwest Florida, some of whom it contends are in the “direct vicinity” of the project. Audubon’s mission statement is to protect birds and their habitat for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Town is an incorporated municipality located on the west coast of Florida along the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed dune walkover is within the Town limits. Standing3/ Audubon considers the LEICWA and its surrounding areas important, because it is “important to the birds.” Audubon was involved in the process of establishing the LEICWA, and its members volunteer to help monitor and manage the LEICWA. The LEICWA is a renowned bird-watching site. Audubon members have assisted in “posting for nesting birds, as well as fielding volunteers who are bird stewards. They chaperone the colony to protect it from disturbance, especially on busy beach going weekends.” The interest in areas outside of the LEICWA is less apparent, though Audubon alleged that the areas around the LEICWA are important to the birds and, thus, Audubon’s members, since “birds unfortunately don’t recognize boundaries.” In addition, Audubon alleged that the dune walkover would irreparably harm the lagoon and the coastal habitat seaward of it, which is important habitat for imperiled species that are critical for the enjoyment of Audubon’s members. Audubon’s interest in contesting the CCCL and the Waiver is tied to the reasons for its ERP and SSL standing. The Town’s interest in the Consolidated Permit and the CCCL Permit was related to the importance of the Ft. Myers Beach beaches, including those in the LEICWA, to the Town’s economy from ecotourism. The Town’s interest in shorebirds is that they contribute to the Town’s economy by “draw[ing] people to select to visit Fort Myers Beach versus other areas of the state.” The Town spends money for beach maintenance to compete for tourism dollars, but does not track the number of visitors to the beach where the Project would be located.4/ The Town’s interest in challenging the CCCL Waiver was that “it goes outside the normal process” and “creates confusion among applicants and the public.” However, the CCCL Waiver would have no effect on the Town’s processing of development orders. In addition, the Town was concerned that the boardwalk, as a frangible structure, could cause damage to the property of nearby private individuals. The interest in that regard was not to the property or resources of the Town, but to “[o]ur residents and our property owners.” Both the Town and Audubon participate in a program that coordinates volunteer efforts to educate beachgoers on nesting birds in the general vicinity of the proposed dune walkover. The Project Area Little Estero Island is part of a barrier island system that has developed over decades through the gradual accretion of sand onto the shoreline. The proposed dune walkover is proposed to be constructed on property just west of Big Carlos Pass, a maintained navigational channel that connects inland coastal waters to the Gulf of Mexico. Big Carlos Pass is a tidally dominated inlet, which results in a very dynamic shoreline in its immediate vicinity. Creation and Fate of the “Lagoon” and Current Shoreline Fort Myers Beach experiences offshore sediment transport that transfers sand along the shoreline from Estero Island towards Big Carlos Pass. In addition, movement of water through Big Carlos Pass agitates and suspends sand, creating an “ebb shoal” at the Gulf side of the pass. Currents generated by wave action transport sand from the ebb shoal offshore along the shoreline on both sides of the pass. The sediment transport results in the development of shoals and swash bars offshore from the Project site. Those features are gradually pushed towards the shore, and eventually “weld” onto the shoreline. Big Carlos Pass was recently (after the October 20, 2015, issuance of the authorizing permit) dredged to maintain, realign, and straighten the inlet channel. The dredged material, consisting of approximately 350,000 cubic yards of sand, was deposited along 4,500 linear feet just offshore to the west of the Project vicinity. The process of accretion, and the “welding” of a shoreward-moving sandbar has resulted in the creation of an enclosed and shrinking body of water between the shoreline and the upland. What was previously the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico is, for now, the landward shoreline of the “lagoon.” During significant storm events, the area can experience overwash, when storm-driven tides and waves overtop the existing Gulf shoreline, spilling into the lagoon. The overwash pushes sand into the lagoon, creating “fans” of sand and sediment, in a process by which the lagoon is continually filled in and narrowed. As established by Mr. Dombrowski, “what we would anticipate over time is that you keep on getting this over-topping of sand that keeps on filling in on the back side of the lagoon which will eventually fill in with sand.” In addition to overwash, rain and stormwater can fill the lagoon, which can result in the creation of temporary drainage outlets. For example, the area was impacted by Tropical Storm Alberto on Memorial Day 2018. Ms. Burns visited the area after the storm, in June 2018, and observed more water in the lagoon and in surrounding areas, including the sandy areas within the LEICWA. By July 18, 2018, at which time the photographs that comprise Petitioners’ Exhibit 7 were taken, the water levels in the lagoon were lower. During a visit nearer to the date of the hearing, there was less water in the lagoon due to diminished rainfall, and water no longer flowed through the remnants of the drainage channels. Thus, stormwater drainage, rather than tidal connection, is the most likely cause of the swashes observed in the series of photographs taken on July 18, 2018. In order for the lagoon to be considered “tidal,” there would have to be an established connection between the lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico to allow for the regular periodic exchange of waters through tidal ebbs and flows. Mr. DeGraff took a series of “water shots” of the levels in the lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico. Whereas water levels in the Gulf of Mexico changed with the tides, the water levels in the lagoon remained constant, which supports that there is no connection between the two. Overwash and storm events may temporarily open one-way connections and outfalls of water between the lagoon and the Gulf of Mexico as a result of accumulation of water in the back barrier environment. If enough water is pushed into the lagoon, it will find an exit, but the flow is “not back and forth again through a particular cut,” as would be the case with an established and regular tidal connection. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the “lagoon” is not tidally connected to the Gulf of Mexico but is, rather, a feature that experiences no tidal ebb and flow and is, under normal conditions, disconnected from the Gulf of Mexico. The “big picture” view of the process of shoaling, welding, filling, and narrowing of the “lagoon,” and ultimate reestablishment of the previously existing shoreline is depicted in Petitioners’ Exhibit 44, which images can be viewed as a fascinating and visually compelling time-lapse of the Petitioners' Exhibit 44 images at https://earthengine.google.com /timelapse/#v=26.40708,-81.89551,11.491,latLng&t=0.00. The persistent narrowing of the temporary lagoon is well-depicted in Petitioners’ Exhibit 43. That exhibit, consisting of a series of aerial photographs, demonstrates convincingly the accretional nature of the area in front of the Applicants’ property, and offers support for evidence that “over the last 50 plus years . . . and especially within the last ten to 15, is that this shoreline has been accreting.” Competent, substantial evidence establishes that the accretional trend will naturally continue and may be further influenced by the deposition of dredged spoil from Big Carlos Pass, and supports the testimony of Mr. Dombrowski that the lagoon will naturally fill in with the cycle, at some future time, repeating itself. In the area of the Project, the shoreline has been accreting at a rate of around 28 feet (or more) per year between 1999 and 2011. In the last 52 years, the shoreline to the east of the Project area has grown by more than 600 feet. To the west of the Project area, within the LEICWA, overwash events and alluvial fans associated with such events demonstrate the accretional nature of the shoreline. Mr. Kroemer owns a Hobie Wave Runner sailboat, which requires about 12 inches of water, and two kayaks, which require two to three inches of water that he uses in the Gulf of Mexico. To access the Gulf, Mr. Kroemer paddles or pushes the boats - depending on the season - through the lagoon and then takes them over land to the Gulf. The water levels in the lagoon are not sufficient to allow for the sailboat to traverse year round. The greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the water area over which the dune walkover is proposed will, as a process of accretion, fill with sand creating an unimpeded pathway to the Gulf of Mexico, as was the case prior to the most recent accretionally welded sand bar. The suggestion that the shoreline will erode and ultimately become open water is not supported by the evidence. Vegetation The vegetative species in the vicinity of the proposed dune walkover and surrounding the lagoon include mangroves; shrubby plants, including bay cedar and marsh elder; and facultative grass species, such as hurricane grass. The Project area is becoming increasingly more vegetated, with plant communities pioneering at the ground cover level, followed by shrubs and small trees. The area is generally undergoing natural ecological succession. The vegetation in the areas over which the proposed dune walkover is to be constructed, including the ground cover, is too thick to be conducive for shorebird nesting, which generally occurs in areas that are open, and sandy or shelly. The mangroves that fringe the lagoon range from five to seven feet in height, and the shrubby vegetation in the Project area can be up to four feet in height. Wildlife The beaches in the area are used by shorebirds and migratory birds for nesting, foraging, and loafing. Birds that have been observed in the general vicinity of the LEICWA include Snowy Plovers, Wilson’s Plovers, American Oystercatchers, Black Skimmers, and Least Terns. Snowy Plovers, American Oystercatchers, Black Skimmers, and Least Terns are designated by the FFWCC as threatened bird species. Those species are also identified by DEP as “Listed Wildlife Species that are Aquatic or Wetland Dependent and that Use Upland Habitats for Nesting or Denning” in A.H. Table 10.2.7-1, with Snowy Plovers and Least Terns listed as “State-designated Threatened,” and American Oystercatchers and Black Skimmers listed as “State Species of Special Concern.” Wilson’s Plovers are not a species listed as threatened, of special concern, or of any other protected classification by the FFWCC or DEP. Snowy Plovers, American Oystercatchers, Black Skimmers, and Least Terns prefer clear, open sand for nesting. They lay their eggs on the sand or in shallow “scrapes” or depressions in the sand. The eggs generally match the substrate, and the coloration of the chicks allows them to blend in with the sand, providing a camouflaging defense against predators. Those species are colony nesters, nesting in groups as a reproductive strategy. Wilson’s Plovers also prefer open sandy areas, but will occasionally nest in nearby sparsely vegetated areas, referred to by Mr. Johnson as “salt and pepper” coverage, which have pockets of open sand. Such areas exist waterward of the proposed terminus of the dune walkover. Wilson’s Plovers are solitary nesters. Shorebirds will typically not nest in areas with vegetative cover. Mangroves and other tall, woody species of plants create perching opportunities for crows and other avian predators, while ground-dwelling predators like snakes can move through vegetation and predate shorebird nests. Applicants’ Exhibits 6 and 9 depict the extent of shorebird utilization, including nesting, of habitat in the immediate Project vicinity based on a series of 2017 and 2018 site visits, historic aerial photographs, and FFWCC shorebird data. Applicants’ Exhibit 6 provides a visual representation of the wide utilization of the open raked beach area east of the Project for nesting, with only scattered use of “salt and pepper” vegetated areas by non-threatened Wilson’s Plovers. Applicants’ Exhibits 6 and 9, in combination with Mr. Johnson’s testimony and field notes, is found to be the most accurate and representative depiction of the utilization of the Project area by shorebirds. There have been shorebird sightings on the sandy shoreline waterward of the terminus of the proposed dune walkover. The closest recorded bird sighting to the Project area, involving a Wilson’s Plover nest scrape and, subsequently, a nesting female at that location, was approximately 150 feet southwest of the waterward terminus of the dune walkover in an area of “salt and pepper” vegetation. During his site visits in 2017, Mr. Johnson observed considerable pedestrian traffic along the shoreline waterward of the Project area. It was in this general area that he had noted the presence of Wilson’s Plovers. He explained that Wilson’s Plovers can tolerate pedestrian traffic as long as it does not “get right up on” their nests. When nesting areas are roped off, Wilson’s Plovers can tolerate pedestrian traffic up to the protective barrier as long as it does not encroach into the protected area. Sea turtles also have the potential to nest just above the high tide mark in the dunes waterward of the proposed dune walkover. A staked sea turtle nest west of the Project area was observed by Ms. Burns during her July 2018 visit to the area. Sea turtles do not typically nest in vegetated areas. Given both the distance to and vegetative cover at the waterward terminus of the dune walkover, sea turtles would be unlikely to migrate to the Project area to excavate a nest. There was no evidence that pedestrian access to the location at which Ms. Burns observed the staked sea turtle nest was restricted. Rather, the evidence establishes that pedestrian traffic is allowable and common along the shoreline. People walking along the shore could easily happen upon the staked area, just as Ms. Burns did, and just as Mr. Johnson did during his visits to the area. In that regard, the Applicants, even if they were to take a longer and more circuitous route to the shoreline, would not be restricted in walking along the shoreline in the vicinity of the nest. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed dune walkover will have no adverse effect on nesting sea turtles in the area. The LEICWA Property to the west of the proposed dune walkover has been designated by the State of Florida as the LEICWA. The LEICWA includes some vegetated land adjacent and parallel to the footprint of the proposed dune walkover. The proposed dune walkover is not within the boundary of the LEICWA. At times, portions of the LEICWA are roped off by the FFWCC to demarcate shorebird nests and nesting colonies, and to channel pedestrian access through the LEICWA. There was no persuasive evidence that pedestrian traffic through the LEICWA is disruptive to the birds using the LEICWA or to their nesting patterns. Posted and roped-off areas are not intended to identify the geographic extent of the LEICWA, and are often not specific to shorebird nest sightings, but instead represent larger areas “to allow the birds to have more availability to choose where they’re going to nest.” Roughly 300 feet east of the Project area and the LEICWA boundary (as scaled using Petitioner’s Exhibit 6) is a large raked, sandy area which is maintained free of vegetation. A large number of shorebirds and shorebird nests have been documented on the open, sandy area. The open, sandy area is directly abutted to its north by homes and by what appear to be larger multi-family structures. In addition, the open area is “preferred by a lot of beach goers to have open sand to walk through instead of walking through vegetation. So it's been manipulated mechanically to be open.” There was no evidence that the direct proximity of such residential structures, their inhabitants, and beachgoers have any disruptive affect on the large nesting colonies inhabiting that area. A four-foot-high, three-foot-wide education kiosk placed by the FFWCC is located on the shore side of the LEICWA. A roughly seven-foot-high, 15-inch-wide sign, educating beachgoers about the LEICWA and of the needs of the birds that frequent the area has been placed at the edge of the LEICWA. Neither of the signs incorporate any features designed to discourage their use as perches. Both of the signs provide an elevated and unobstructed vantage point into the LEICWA’s primary nesting area. The signs, which are much greater in height and nearer to the LEICWA’s preferred shorebird nesting habitat than the proposed dune walkover “can serve as perches” for predatory birds in the area. Although there was evidence that Petitioners’ members and employees monitor the signs for evidence that they are being used as perches, there was no evidence to suggest what might happen if they were. Although the dune walkover is not within the boundary of the LEICWA, Ms. Wraithmell testified that “[t]he birds unfortunately don’t recognize boundaries.” While birds may not recognize boundaries, regulators must. Standards that apply within a designated critical wildlife area do not apply outside of a critical wildlife area, even within feet of the boundary. That is why boundaries, including legal descriptions, are set. Since the proposed dune walkover is not within the boundary of the LEICWA, standards applicable within critical wildlife areas cannot be applied. The Proposed Dune Walkover The dune walkover is proposed as a 1,491.50 square- foot (298.3 feet in length by 5 feet in width) piling-supported wooden walkway five feet in width. Its original six-foot width was reduced to five feet, which remains adequate to accommodate an anticipated need for the use of a wheelchair or mobility device by one of the Applicants. The steps at the waterward end of the proposed dune walkover were replaced with ramps, also for use by a wheelchair or similar device. The replacement of the initially proposed stairs with a ramp will also reduce “lift” forces in the event of a storm. The dune walkover will serve to minimize foot traffic on the native dune vegetation, and will channel the foot traffic from its terminus to the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. As such, the dune walkover will have a beneficial effect on the native vegetation in its immediate area. As originally proposed, the dune walkover was to have been three feet, ten inches above the ground surface, with three-foot-high handrails. In order to meet the concerns posed by others, particularly the FFWCC, the height was lowered to two feet, six inches above the ground surface, which is the maximum height for a structure to be built without handrails. The handrails were removed in their entirety, and the design does not contain any pickets or other “non-structural members.” Thus, the proposed dune walkover is, at its highest point, two feet, six inches above the ground surface. Mangroves in the vicinity of the dune walkover are generally from five to seven feet in height, and commonly occurring shrubby vegetation of four feet in height was observed in the area. Thus, the dune walkover is well below the elevation of the surrounding vegetation. The dune walkover, as currently proposed, has no value as a perch or vantage point for avian predators. The posts that support the structure will be round, six inches in diameter, and installed five feet deep into the sand. The posts will not be encased in concrete, and will be wrapped to prevent leaching of any potentially toxic compounds into the environment. The walking surface of the dune walkover will be made of slatted decking, with a one-half inch space between each deck board. The proposed ERP indicated that gaps will allow sufficient light penetration to maintain the underlying vegetative habitat. There was no persuasive evidence to the contrary. In its final configuration, the proposed dune walkover is fully compliant with, though substantially smaller and less intrusive than, the generally acceptable siting, design, and elevation provisions set forth in the DEP Beach and Dune Walkover Guidelines. As originally proposed, the dune walkover would have crossed the LEICWA boundary, though in an area of minimal value to shorebird nesting or feeding. Nonetheless, in order to address the concerns expressed by others, including the FFWCC, the Applicants modified the configuration of the proposed dune walkover so that it is now completely outside of the boundary of the LEICWA. The construction plans do not require the use of vehicles, other than to deliver the material to the site. There will be no placement of fill. There will be no lighting, either in construction or in operation. As mitigation for the minimal impacts associated with the crossing of the lagoon, and at DEP’s direction, the Applicants purchased 0.01 saltwater forest and 0.1 saltwater herbaceous mitigation credits in the Pine Island Mitigation Bank, to offset for any remaining impacts not avoided through the design modifications. It was established, by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence adduced at the hearing, that the proposed mitigation was sufficient to offset any environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, even before its width was decreased from six feet to five feet. The alterations to the proposed dune walkover as described herein were largely made to address the concerns expressed by the FFWCC in its comments of August 27, 2015; July 20, 2016; and July 27, 2017, and the proposed ERP and CCCL Permit incorporates all of the conditions requested by the FFWCC. It was established that the Applicants have addressed and met the FFWCC’s concerns regarding the proposed Project. Environmental Resource Permit The issuance or denial of an ERP is generally governed by section 373.414, chapter 62-330, and the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I (“A.H.”). Section 373.4131(1) requires DEP to adopt statewide environmental resource permitting rules. DEP has done so through the adoption of rules 62-330.301 and 62-330.302. Under the burden of proof discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein, the Applicants met their burden of demonstrating that they met all applicable standards and were entitled to issuance of the ERP by entering the application and DEP’s notice of intent of issue the ERP in evidence. Therefore, a finding that there was insufficient evidence introduced by Petitioners to rebut the prima facie case is sufficient to establish that the grounds for issuance have been met. Based on the entirety of the record of this proceeding, the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed dune walkover meets the requirements for the ERP. Rule 62-330.301(1) Rule 62-330.301(1) provides that an applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the permitted activity will not cause adverse affects. The standards established by rule are further described in the A.H. Water quantity impacts: Rule 62-330.301(1)(a) and A.H. Section 10.2.2.4 Piling supported structures do not typically impact a water body’s depth or flow. The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the piling-supported dune walkover would reduce the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation or saturation in the lagoon; would increase the depth, duration, or frequency of inundation through changing the rate or method of discharge of water to the lagoon or by impounding water in the lagoon; or could have the effect of altering water levels in the lagoon. To the contrary, there was substantial testimony, and it is found, that the proposed dune walkover will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Adverse flooding: Rule 62-330.301(1)(b) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. Adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities: Rule 62-330.301(1)(c) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters: Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) and A.H. Section 10.2.2 The A.H. provides that “[i]n evaluating whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurances under these provisions, de minimis effects shall not be considered adverse for the purposes of this section.” In accordance with the A.H., DEP provided information to the FFWCC and solicited comments on the proposed dune walkover in its various configurations. The Applicants met every listed substantive concern expressed by the FFWCC in its comments of August 27, 2015; July 20, 2016; and July 27, 2017. The proposed ERP incorporates all of the conditions requested by the FFWCC. The A.H. section 10.2.2 also provides that “[t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the likelihood that the site is used by listed species and the bald eagle, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species, and whether the proposed activity will impact that use.” In its August 27, 2015, comments, the FFWCC requested that the Applicants provide an assessment of anticipated impacts to wildlife. Thereafter, on December 2, 2015, Mr. Rood provided information to DEP explaining, accurately, the densely vegetated nature of the proposed dune walkover location, and its lack of value to nesting shorebirds. He correctly noted the general distance, i.e., 100 to 150 yards, from the terminus of the proposed dune walkover to the nearest shorebird nesting area and “roped off nesting areas.” The A.H. provides that “[t]he need for a wildlife survey will depend upon the likelihood that the site is used by listed species and the bald eagle, considering site characteristics and the range and habitat needs of such species.” As a result of Mr. Rood’s explanation of the characteristics of the Project location, on December 11, 2015, the FFWCC withdrew its request for the survey and wildlife assessment. As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence demonstrates that there will be no adverse impacts to the value of functions provided to any species of concern provided by the lagoon and associated wetlands that will result from the construction and use of the proposed dune walkover. Shorebirds, whether or not they are protected species, will not be impacted by the Project. There was no evidence to support a finding that wading birds foraging in the lagoon, as depicted in photographs taken by Ms. Burns, would be affected in any way. Water quality impacts: Rule 62-330.301(1)(e) and A.H. Section 10.2.4 An ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that State water quality standards will be violated. DEP required turbidity control to address short-term water quality issues attendant with construction. Best management practices to minimize construction-related turbidity are required. The sand in the area is coarse, with a small percentage of sands and clays, further minimizing the potential for turbidity. The pilings are required to be wrapped to prevent any chemicals used to treat the pilings from leaching into the soil or water. The structure will be constructed outward from the boardwalk deck, thus, minimizing impacts to surrounding vegetation and surface waters. The ERP is conditioned on adherence to Best Management Practices to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into the wetlands or surface waters. The preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence demonstrates that there will be no adverse impacts on water quality associated with the construction or use of the proposed dune walkover. The evidence introduced by Petitioners was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause adverse impacts to water quality. Secondary impacts: Rule 62-330.301(1)(f) and A.H. Sections 10.1.1(f) and 10.2.7 An ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts. The secondary impact criterion consists of four parts as established in A.H. section 10.2.7(a) through (d). The proposed dune walkover will not have any lighting so as to impact turtle nesting, and will involve no vehicles except as necessary to deliver building supplies. Other secondary impacts identified in A.H. section 10.2.7(a) are not applicable. The preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence in this proceeding established that the area in which the proposed dune walkover is to be constructed will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for any listed bird species of concern for nesting or foraging as set forth in A.H. section 10.2.7(b). The Project area is thickly vegetated which, as discussed previously, is not conducive for use by shorebirds that frequent the LEICWA. The nearest documented shorebird presence is well removed from the dune walkover terminus. The evidence established that the pedestrian traffic resulting from the use of the dune walkover will not disturb Wilson’s Plovers, which is the only observed species that uses the “salt and pepper” vegetation between the dune walkover and the Gulf of Mexico. Any nests would, as are existing nests in the area, be marked. Wilson’s Plovers are tolerant of pedestrian traffic as long as it does not directly encroach into their nesting area. The suggestion that the Applicants’ use of the proposed dune walkover will disrupt the habits of shorebirds observed near its terminus disregards the fact that the area is already used by the Applicants to access the beach. Furthermore, the beach itself, which is much nearer to observed bird sightings, is popular and frequently used, without restriction, by beachgoers other than the Applicants. There was no evidence that such pedestrian access along the beach adversely affects shorebirds. Pedestrian access is allowed directly through areas of the LEICWA that are more thickly populated with nests of shorebird species less tolerant of pedestrian traffic than the Wilson’s Plovers. There was no evidence that such pedestrian access through the LEICWA adversely affects shorebirds. As indicated previously, the open, sandy area to the east of the Project area is extensively used for nesting by large colonies of various protected shorebird species. That area is directly bounded by single and multi-family residences, and is a popular area for beach access. There was no evidence that human presence near, and pedestrian access through, the areas used by colonies of shorebirds adversely affected those shorebirds. The Applicants presently drag their Hobie sailboat and kayaks across the lagoon and through the dunes. The dune walkover will allow them to simply wheel or carry those vessels across the lagoon and dunes without further impact. The evidence in this case does not support a finding that the existing pedestrian access will be increased by the dune walkover but, to the contrary, suggests that the walkover will allow access in a much less disruptive and destructive manner. A.H. sections 10.2.7(c) and (d), governing, respectively, associated activities that have the potential to cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources and future project phases or activities, are not applicable to the proposed dune walkover. The preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence demonstrates that there will be no adverse secondary impacts associated with the construction or use of the proposed dune walkover. The evidence introduced by Petitioners was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause adverse secondary impacts. Adverse impacts to the maintenance of Minimum Flows and Levels: Rule 62-330.301(1)(g) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause adverse impacts to the maintenance of surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows. Adverse impacts to a Work of the District: Rule 62-330.301(1)(h) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause adverse impacts to a Work of the District. Capable of performing and functioning as proposed: Rule 62-330.301(1)(i) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will not be capable of performing and functioning as proposed. Conducted by a person with the financial, legal and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit: Rule 62-330.301(1)(j) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will not be conducted by persons with the financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the proposed dune walkover will be constructed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ERP. The legal ability to undertake the activities that are encompassed by the SSL Authorization, CCCL Permit, and CCCL Waivers are being decided herein, and their lack of finality does not constitute a failure to meet this ERP permitting criteria. Comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria: Rule 62-330.301(1)(k) The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will not comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria. Public Interest Test - Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, Rule 62-330.302(1)(a), and A.H. Section 10.2.3 Section 373.414(1) provides that an applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the permitted activity will not cause violations of state water quality standards and that such activity is not contrary to the public interest. As set forth in the discussion of rule 62- 330.301(1)(e) and A.H. section 10.2.4 above, the Applicants demonstrated that the proposed dune walkover will not cause violations of state water quality standards. Furthermore, the evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause violations of state water quality standards. The seven factors that constitute the public interest test are established in section 373.414(1)(a), reiterated in rule 62-330.302(1)(a), and explained in greater detail in A.H. section 10.2.3. As set forth previously, some of the criteria would appear to have no relevance to this case. However, since Petitioners failed to provide any substantive narrowing of the issues in the JPS, it is necessary to go through each and every factor to ensure that some element of the ERP analysis required “pursuant to all applicable rules and statutes” does not go unaddressed.5/ Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others: Section 373.414(1)(a)1.; Rule 62-330.302(1)(a)1.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.1 The evaluation of the factors for consideration under this element of the public interest test include environmental issues such as “mosquito control; proper disposal of solid, hazardous, domestic or industrial waste; aids to navigation; hurricane preparedness or cleanup; environmental remediation, enhancement or restoration; and similar environmentally related issues.” The evaluation also includes impacts to shellfish harvesting areas; flooding or the alleviation of flooding on the property of others; and affects on the water table that could result in the drainage of off-site wetlands or other surface waters. The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats: Section 373.414(1)(a)2.; Rule 62-330.302(1)(a)2.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.2 A.H. section 10.2.3.2 provides that the “fish and wildlife” element of the public interest test is to be evaluated as follows: The Agency’s public interest review of that portion of a proposed activity in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters for impacts to “the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats” is encompassed within the required review of the entire activity under section 10.2.2, above. As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence demonstrates that the proposed dune walkover will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of competent and substantial evidence that the Applicants failed to meet the standards set forth in section 373.414(1)(a)2., rule 62-330.302(1)(a)2., and A.H. section 10.2.3.3. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling: Section 373.414(1)(a)3.; Rule 62- 330.302(1)(a)3.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.3 With regard to this element of the public interest test, A.H. section 10.2.3.3 provides, in pertinent part, that: In reviewing and balancing the criterion on navigation, erosion and shoaling in section 10.2.3(c), above, the Agency will evaluate whether the regulated activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters will: Significantly impede navigability or enhance navigability. The Agency will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses that may occur in the future. Applicants proposing to construct bridges or other traversing works must address adequate horizontal and vertical clearance for the type of watercraft currently navigating the surface waters . . . . Cause or alleviate harmful erosion or shoaling . . . . Significantly impact or enhance water flow . . . . The only evidence of any form of vessels using the lagoon was the Applicants’ act of paddling or dragging the Hobie sailboat and kayaks across the lagoon to access the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Such does not constitute “current navigational uses of the surface waters.” The preponderance of the evidence in this case establishes that there is no “current” navigational use of the lagoon. No testimony or evidence was elicited that the lagoon supported any form of boating or other navigational use. No person owning property abutting the lagoon that might be affected by some restriction on their navigational rights objected to the proposed dune walkover. The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will significantly impede navigability. Ms. Mills testified that “piling supported structures are used in dynamic systems all the time. Specifically you know, because they don’t really have an effect on the movement of sand.” Her testimony is credited. Her testimony, combined with that of the Applicants’ expert witnesses regarding the nature of the area, was sufficient to establish that the proposed dune walkover will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Furthermore, the evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will cause erosion or shoaling. The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will significantly impact or enhance water flow. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of competent and substantial evidence that the Applicants failed to meet the standards set forth in section 373.414(1)(a)3.; rule 62-330.302(1)(a)3.; and A.H. section 10.2.3.3. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity: Section 373.414(1)(a)4.; Rule 62-330.302(1)(a)4.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.4 The evaluation of the factors for consideration under this element of the public interest test include adverse effects to sport or commercial fisheries or marine productivity, including the elimination or degradation of fish nursery habitat, change in ambient water temperature, change in normal salinity regime, reduction in detrital export, change in nutrient levels, or other adverse effects on populations of native aquatic organisms. The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will adversely affect sport or commercial fisheries or marine productivity. The public interest evaluation under these regulatory provisions also includes effects on “existing recreational uses of a wetland or other surface water, which could include impacts to “the current use of the waterway for boating.” Other than evidence that the Applicants had to paddle or push their shallow draft sailboat and kayaks across the lagoon to reach the Gulf, there was no evidence to establish that the lagoon has any recreational use. The DEP determined that it does not, based on the fact that the lagoon is not of a permanent depth to support navigation and was intermittently (at best) connected to the Gulf of Mexico. Ms. Mills’ testimony to that effect was persuasive, consistent with that of Mr. Kroemer, and is credited. The standards applicable to impacts to recreational uses are directed to “existing” and “current” uses. There was no evidence of anyone currently using the lagoon for recreational boating. Mr. Rood indicated that he had never seen anyone boating in the lagoon. There was no evidence that anyone else along the lagoon even had a boat. Mr. Kroemer, when asked if his neighbors could use the dune walkover to portage their boats across the lagoon testified that “I’m not aware that they have boats.” No property owners with homes along the lagoon objected to the proposed dune walkover. The evidence in this case establishes that the proposed dune walkover will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values, or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature: Section 373.414(1)(a)5.; Rule 62-330.302(1)(a)5.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.5 The proposed dune walkover is intended to provide permanent access to the Gulf of Mexico, as opposed to being a temporary structure. This finding should not be conflated with whether the proposed dune walkover is an “expendable structure” for purposes of the CCCL Permit, as will be discussed herein. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources: Section 373.414(1)(a)6.; Rule 62- 330.302(1)(a)6.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.6 There was no evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will affect significant historical and archaeological resources in any manner. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity: Section 373.414(1)(a)7.; Rule 62- 330.302(1)(a)7.; A.H. Section 10.2.3.7 The evidence introduced by Petitioners in this case was not sufficient or persuasive to support a finding that the proposed dune walkover will adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the waters of and wetlands surrounding the lagoon. The evidence in this case was almost entirely directed to nesting and feeding habitat of shorebirds frequenting the LEICWA. The preponderance of the evidence established that the areas affected by the proposed dune walkover are not conducive for nesting, feeding, or loafing by Snowy Plovers, American Oystercatchers, Black Skimmers, or Least Terns. The Applicants’ Exhibit 6, which was relied upon by each of the parties, showed no observed sightings of those species near the lagoon or the smaller water feature. There was one observed sighting of a non-threatened Wilson’s Plover near the edge of the smaller water feature, though not directly affected by the proposed dune walkover, and no observed sightings of any of the identified species of concern near the lagoon or in the waters of either water body. There was no evidence that the proposed dune walkover would affect the wading birds or shorebirds photographed by Ms. Burns. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of competent and substantial evidence that the Applicants failed to meet the standards set forth in section 373.414(1)(a)7.; rule 62-330.302(1)(a)7.; and A.H. section 10.2.3.7. Cumulative Impacts: Section 373.414(8); Rule 62- 330.302(1)(b); A.H. Sections 10.1.1(g) and 10.2.8 A.H. section 10.2.8 provides, in pertinent part, that: The impact on wetlands and other surface waters shall be reviewed by evaluating the impacts to water quality as set forth in section 10.1.1(c), above, and by evaluating the impacts to functions identified in section 10.2.2, above. If an applicant proposes to mitigate these adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets these impacts, then the Agency will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, and consequently, the condition for issuance in section 10.1.1(g) will be satisfied. Section 373.4136 establishes that the use of mitigation credits is sufficient to offset adverse impacts for an activity in the mitigation bank service area, and provides, in pertinent part, that: The department or water management district shall establish a mitigation service area for each mitigation bank permit . . . . Except as provided herein, mitigation credits may be withdrawn and used only to offset adverse impacts in the mitigation service area. The boundaries of the mitigation service area shall depend upon the geographic area where the mitigation bank could reasonably be expected to offset adverse impacts . . . . In determining the boundaries of the mitigation service area, the department or the water management district shall consider . . . at a minimum, the extent to which the mitigation bank: * * * 3. Will provide for the long-term viability of endangered or threatened species or species of special concern; [and] * * * 5. Can reasonably be expected to offset specific types of wetland impacts within a specific geographic area. . . . * * * (c) Once a mitigation bank service area has been established by the department or a water management district for a mitigation bank, such service area shall be accepted by all water management districts, local governments, and the department. The Applicants have proposed mitigation in the form of the purchase of 0.01 saltwater forested mitigation bank credits and 0.01 saltwater herbaceous mitigation bank credits from the Pine Island Mitigation Bank. The proposed dune walkover is within the service area established for the Pine Island Mitigation Bank. The mitigation credits, which were initially calculated based on a six-foot-wide dune walkover, are more than sufficient to offset any adverse impacts of the proposed five-foot-wide dune walkover on the wetlands and surface waters in the Project area. Ms. Mills testified that the proposed dune walkover would have “[n]o adverse cumulative impacts because the project would be doing mitigation, with mitigation bank credits within the surface area established for the mitigation bank.” Her testimony established that the statutory offset criteria is applied when a project (and a mitigation bank such as the Pine Island Mitigation Bank) is on a barrier island which, because there is no “drainage” except to the Gulf of Mexico, is not within a “drainage basin.” Her testimony was persuasive, meets the statutory criteria in section 373.4136, and is accepted. There are no existing permits or pending applications for similar dune walkovers in the area. Given the presence of the LEICWA to the west, applications for similar walkovers within its boundary are unlikely and, if made, would have to comply with critical wildlife area restrictions. The evidence in this case establishes that the proposed dune walkover will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Furthermore, Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of competent and substantial evidence that the Applicants failed to meet the standards set forth in section 373.414(1)(a)7.; rule 62-330.302(1)(a)7.; and A.H. section 10.2.3.7. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts: A.H. Section 10.2.1 A.H. section 10.2.1 provides, in pertinent part, that: The following factors are considered in determining whether an application will be approved by the Agency: the degree of impact to wetland and other surface water functions caused by a proposed activity; whether the impact to these functions can be mitigated; and the practicability of design modifications for the site that could eliminate or reduce impacts to these functions, including alignment alternatives for a proposed linear system. A.H. section 10.2.1.1 provides, in pertinent part, that: The term “modification” shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the activity in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function . . . . A.H. section 10.2.1.2 provides, in pertinent part, that: The Agency will not require the applicant to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts when: * * * b. The applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and that provides greater long term ecological value than the area of wetland or other surface water to be adversely affected. As set forth previously, the Applicants have proposed mitigation in the form of the purchase of 0.01 saltwater forested mitigation bank credits and 0.01 saltwater herbaceous mitigation bank credits from the Pine Island Mitigation Bank. The Project area is within the service area established for the Pine Island Mitigation Bank. Ms. Mills testified that “any habitat can be used for nesting and denning, I think any impacts have been offset by the mitigation.” Her testimony is credited. The evidence was also sufficient to establish that the mitigation was in an amount that offsets the impacts of the proposed dune walkover on the lagoon, provides regional ecological value, and provides greater long-term ecological value than the area of the lagoon affected. Based on the Findings of Fact set forth herein, and as supported by a preponderance of the persuasive evidence adduced at the hearing, the Applicants were under no requirement to implement practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts from the proposed dune walkover. Despite having no obligation to do so, the Applicants did implement practicable design modifications, resulting in a realignment of the dune walkover to eliminate any encroachment on the LEICWA, the reduction of the width of the Project from six feet to five feet, and the elimination of features that resulted in a much lower and unobtrusive structure. The Applicants also agreed to permit conditions to implement construction methodologies to reduce impacts, and eliminate lighting that could affect adjacent habitats. In addition to the foregoing, Ms. Mills testified convincingly that the boardwalk in this area would serve to minimize unrestricted and unchanneled foot traffic, and direct traffic so that people are not “using other manners that aren't specifically defined causing more adverse impacts” through natural and sandy areas. Her testimony is credited. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of competent and substantial evidence that the Applicants failed to meet the standards set forth in A.H. sections 10.2.1 and 10.2.1.2. Environmental Resource Permit - Ultimate Finding of Fact A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in this case establishes that the Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to the issuance of the ERP, meeting the standards established in section 373.414, rules 62- 330.301 and 62-330.302, and the applicable sections of the A.H. Petitioners did not meet their burden of demonstrating that the ERP should not be issued. SSL Authorization The sovereignty lands at issue in this case are those that were under state ownership prior to the landward migration and attachment of the sandbar. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.003(61). The Applicants did not dispute that a SSL Authorization was appropriate. The standards for issuance of an SSL Authorization, including a Letter of Consent Easement, are generally established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004. Based on the entirety of the record of this proceeding, the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that the proposed dune walkover meets the requirements for the SSL Authorization. 18-21.004(1)(a) - Contrary to the public interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) provides that “activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest.” As established by the DEP: Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) requires an applicant to demonstrate that an activity proposed to be conducted on sovereignty submerged lands will not be contrary to the public interest. . . . [T]o meet this standard, it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest, " as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51), Florida Administrative Code. Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Defenders of Crooked Lake, Inc. v. Krista Howard and Dep’t of Envt’l Prot., DOAH Case No. 17-5328, FO at 26 (Fla. DOAH July 5, 2018; Fla. DEP Aug. 16, 2018). As set forth in detail previously herein, the Applicants have demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence in the record, that the proposed dune walkover will pose no demonstrable environmental or social costs. The suggestion that the construction of the proposed dune walkover will adversely affect the economic viability of the LEICWA or the Town is, under the facts of this case, simply implausible. The facts stipulated by the parties provide that “the beach and the ecotourism generated by the potential for birdwatching is important for the Town’s economy.” However, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed dune walkover will have no effect on the use of the beach, shorebirds, or the LEICWA. The fact that the proposed dune walkover is a private structure does not militate against its meeting the public interest test. As stated by Ms. Mills, “it's not contrary to the Board's public interest test because the Board has outlined through its rule a procedure for a private homeowner to get consent through an easement to use Sovereign Submerged Lands.” Her testimony is credited. For the reasons set forth herein, the Applicants met the provisions of the “public interest test” established in rule 18-21.004(1)(a). 18-21.004(2) - Resource management Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: All sovereignty lands shall be considered single use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Compatible secondary purposes and uses which will not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose may be allowed. Activities which would result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources shall not be approved unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed. * * * (i) Activities on sovereignty lands shall be designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural resources. Special attention and consideration shall be given to endangered and threatened species habitat. By providing a means of channeling and making the Applicants’ existing access across sovereignty lands less disruptive and damaging to the lagoon, dunes, and bird species, the proposed dune walkover meets the principles that the sovereignty lands be maintained in their essentially natural conditions, and that they be conducive to the propagation of fish and wildlife. The proposed dune walkover involves use of sovereignty lands to facilitate access to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico for traditional uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. The testimony of the Applicants was sufficient to demonstrate that there was no reasonable alternative to the proposed dune walkover, other than the more disruptive and destructive means of providing access to the Gulf of Mexico currently in use. Though a strong argument can be made that the proposed dune walkover has fewer impacts, and is more protective of sovereignty lands than the Applicants’ existing (and lawful) means of access, sufficient mitigation was provided as described herein. The Project, by virtue of steps taken to minimize its footprint to the minimum necessary to allow access by wheelchair or mobility device, to remove handrails, and by construction methods, including construction from the decking, has been designed to minimize destruction of wetland vegetation on sovereignty lands. The modifications to the Project, including the lowering of the dune walkover; elimination of handrails; the agreement to forego lighting; the steps taken to eliminate effects on water quality; and the termination of the dune walkover in a densely vegetated area not favored by shorebirds, have minimized adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for endangered and threatened species of shorebirds and marine turtles. For the reasons set forth herein, the Applicants met the provisions of the “resource management” provisions established in rule 18-21.004(2). 18-21.004(3) - Riparian rights Rule 18-21.004(3) provides that activities undertaken on sovereignty lands be conducted so as to not unreasonably infringe upon traditional, common law riparian rights of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands. Section 253.141 provides that “[t]he land to which the owner holds title must extend to the ordinary high watermark of the navigable water in order that riparian rights may attach.” Neither the Applicants nor their neighbors hold title to the mean high water (“MHW”) mark of the Gulf of Mexico.6/ The MHW line, as of December 1, 2014, was at what is generally depicted as the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico. The two more upland water features, i.e., the lagoon and the smaller body, both labeled as “Pond” on the 2014 mean high water survey, were well landward of the MHW. The lagoon, which is normally isolated from the Gulf of Mexico, is not of a depth to be routinely navigable in fact, and frequently has so little water as to require that even kayaks be dragged across, is simply not a navigable water body. Pursuant to section 253.141, neither the Applicants nor their neighbors currently have riparian rights to the lagoon or the smaller feature. Even if it were to be determined that the Applicants’ neighbors had riparian rights to the lagoon, any restriction or infringement on traditional rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, and fishing would not be “unreasonable.” The evidence established that adjacent upland property owners did not have vessels that would be expected to use the lagoon. There was no suggestion that the ability to traverse the lagoon to access the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico, much as the Applicants do now, would be affected. The proposed dune walkover would not restrict bathing or fishing, and the photographic and testimonial evidence established not only that such activities are not engaged in as a matter of fact, but that the shallow, isolated body of water is not conducive to such activities. Finally, in determining whether any restriction on riparian rights -- even if they existed -- was “unreasonable,” it is not inconsequential that no property owners fronting the lagoon objected to or challenged the proposed Project. The evidence in this case established that the lagoon is not a navigable body of water. The MHW line is waterward of the lagoon, and the property lines of the Applicants and their neighbors do not extend to the MHW line. Thus, proximity to that water feature does not serve to confer “riparian” rights on them. Even if the adjacent upland property owners had riparian rights to the lagoon, under the facts of this case, any restriction on such rights created by the proposed dune walkover would not be “unreasonable.” Finally, the mechanism for enforcing such rights would be with the adjacent upland owners, not Petitioners. For the reasons set forth herein, the Applicants met the provisions of the “riparian rights” provisions established in rule 18-21.004(3). 18-21.004(7) - General conditions As established by a preponderance of the evidence, and as previously set forth in the Findings of Fact herein, the proposed dune walkover has been designed, and is subject to conditions as to its construction, that will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources. Thus, the Applicants met the standards for issuance of the SSL Authorization established in rule 18-21.004(7)(d). As established by a preponderance of the evidence, and as previously set forth in the Findings of Fact herein, the proposed dune walkover has been designed, is subject to conditions as to its construction, and is intended for use in a manner that will not adversely affect shorebirds or sea turtles. Thus, the Applicants met the standards for issuance of the SSL Authorization established in rule 18-21.004(7)(e). As established by a preponderance of the evidence, and as previously set forth in the Findings of Fact herein, the lagoon is not a navigable body of water. Furthermore, even if it were navigable, any restriction created by the proposed dune walkover will not be “unreasonable.” Finally, if the adjacent upland owners holding such riparian rights believe such rights to have been infringed, despite their not having heretofore objected to the proposed Project, and a court of competent jurisdiction determines that riparian rights have been unlawfully affected, the DEP has the authority to require that it be modified in accordance with the court’s decision. Thus, the Applicants met the standards for issuance of the SSL Authorization established in rule 18-21.004(7)(f). As established by a preponderance of the evidence, and as previously set forth in the Findings of Fact herein, the proposed dune walkover will not create a navigational hazard. Unlike the “public interest” navigational standards for obtaining an ERP, the “navigational hazard” standard for obtaining a SSL Authorization pursuant to rule 18-21.004(7), though not defined, includes such things as unsafe conditions adjacent to docks and boat slips. Pirtle v. Voss and Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 13-0515 (Fla. DOAH Sep. 23, 2013; Fla. DEP Dec. 26, 2013). A mere inconvenience does not constitute the type of navigational hazard contemplated by the rule. Woolshlager v. Rockman and Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Case No. 06-3296 (Fla. DOAH May 5, 2007; Fla. DEP June 22, 2007). Since there is no proven “navigation” in the lagoon -- other than dragging or, when water levels allow, paddling small boats and kayaks across on the way to accessing the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico -- there is no navigational hazard created by the proposed dune walkover. Thus, the Applicants met the standards for issuance of the SSL Authorization established in rule 18-21.004(7)(g). Finally, as established by a preponderance of the evidence, and as previously set forth in the Findings of Fact herein, the proposed dune walkover has been designed, is subject to conditions as to its construction, and is intended for the water dependent purpose of traversing the lagoon to allow access to the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, the Applicants met the standards for issuance of the SSL Authorization established in rule 18-21.004(7)(i). SSL Authorization - Ultimate Finding of Fact A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in this case establishes that the Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to the issuance of the Letter of Consent Easement, meeting the standards established in chapter 253 and rule 18-21. CCCL Permit DEP has established a CCCL on Little Estero Island. A CCCL permit is required before a person may conduct construction activities beyond that line. Permitting Procedures In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners asserted that “the applicable and relevant procedures for granting a coastal construction control line permit application were not appropriately followed.” However, Petitioners failed to present competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence of any failure by DEP to follow its CCCL permitting procedures. Conversely, DEP established that the project met all of the applicable siting and design criteria, and that DEP complied with statutory and rule criteria and procedures for reviewing and issuing the CCCL Permit. Petitioners have argued that the CCCL Permit should have been procedurally denied because the CCCL Waiver was timely challenged. DEP included special conditions requiring the Applicants to relinquish the CCCL Permit if the CCCL Waivers were denied. In addition, the CCCL Permit does not become final until a Notice to Proceed is issued, which is also conditioned on the CCCL Waivers becoming final. Based on the fact that construction of the dune walkover cannot commence until all permits and authorizations are issued, there was no material error in procedure arising from DEP sequentially issuing the CCCL Waivers and the CCCL Permit, thus, allowing for their consolidation and litigation without unnecessary delay and duplication. Permitting Standards The Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed dune walkover meets the requirements for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line established in section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62B-33. The proposed dune walkover meets the requirements established by rule as a minor structure, and was designed in accordance with DEP’s Beach and Dune Walkover Guidelines. It is designed to be expendable. The size, height, and elimination of concrete anchors were proposed to minimize resistance to forces associated with high frequency storms, and to allow the dune walkover to break away when subjected to such forces. It meets every condition proposed by the DEP and the FFWCC. Its minimal size and design is expected to have a minor impact on the beach and dune system. A preponderance of the evidence established that the proposed dune walkover will not cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. A preponderance of the evidence established that the Project, as a result of its size, profile, and location, will have no measurable affect on the existing shoreline change rate. A preponderance of the evidence further established that the proposed dune walkover is not reasonably expected to significantly interfere with the ability of the coastal system to recover from a coastal storm. A preponderance of the evidence established that the Project would have no measurable effect of the topography or the vegetation of the area. As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed dune walkover would render the dune system unstable or subject to catastrophic failure, or that the protective value of the dune system will be significantly lowered. To the contrary, by lessening pedestrian traffic through the dunes, and channeling traffic at its waterward point of termination, the proposed dune walkover will be protective of the dune system and the coastal system. In that regard, DEP generally encourages dune walkovers to protect the beach and dune system. As a result of the elimination of lighting, of the restriction on construction during turtle nesting season, and of the Applicants’ agreement to all conditions suggested by the FFWCC, the evidence firmly established that the proposed dune walkover will not, by any reasonable measure, result in death or injury to marine turtles, and will result in no significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures marine turtles by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The Project will not result in the removal or destruction of native vegetation. The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the Project will not destabilize the beach and dune system. As set forth herein, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the dune walkover will provide greater protection of the beach and dune system than the Applicants’ existing means of access across the lagoon and dunes. The construction of the dune walkover will cause no significant adverse impact, as defined in rule 62B-33.002(26), to the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. The proposed dune walkover does not require any excavation. There will be no net excavation or removal of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dune system, and no net excavation of the in situ sandy soils seaward of the control line or 50-foot setback. The proposed dune walkover does not include any water directing devices. The preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the project will not direct discharges of water seaward in a manner that would result in significant adverse impacts. The evidence established that the proposed Project will result in no erosion-induced surface water runoff within the beach and dune system. The evidence establishes that, as a general matter, piling-supported structures do not have an effect on the flow of water. However, in extreme events, water encountering an obstacle can cause the movement of sand around the obstacle. The expendability of a structure and its ability to break away prevents scour from occurring and is designed to minimize impacts. The preponderance of the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the Project will not increase scour so as to cause a significant adverse impact, and that any effect of the Project on the coastal processes of the area would be, at most, de minimis. The design of the proposed dune walkover minimizes the amount of materials that might create debris in the event of a storm. The Applicants removed the handrails, decreased the width of the dune walkover from six feet to five feet, and eliminated pickets and non-structural members. The lowering of the dune walkover, and replacement of the stairs with a ramp that minimizes lift forces, have sufficiently reduced the potential for wind and waterborne missiles. The suggestion that the dune walkover will, in the event of a high frequency storm, form destructive airborne missiles is simply not credible. Granted, the proposed dune walkover is designed to break apart in the face of destructive storm forces. If every piece of storm-generated debris was a sufficient basis upon which to deny a CCCL permit, then minor structures would be prohibited, since all minor structures are designed to be expendable and to break away in a high-frequency storm. Some degree of reason must be applied. The Applicants in this case demonstrated that the proposed dune walkover would not itself be such to create significant adverse impacts if subjected to the destructive forces of such a storm. The proposed dune walkover terminates more than 260 feet from the Gulf of Mexico, and will not interfere with the public’s right to laterally traverse the sandy beach of the Gulf of Mexico. The Project area is in a cycle of accretion, has historically accreted, is currently accreting at roughly 28 feet per year, and is expected to continue accreting. The suggestion that, within 15 years, the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico waterward of the Applicants’ properties will retreat, and that the proposed dune walkover would thence reach into the Gulf, blocking pedestrian access to the shoreline, was not supported by quantitative analyses, and was not sufficient to outweigh evidence to the contrary presented by the Applicants. The Applicants offered an assessment and report based on past and current conditions at the monument level, which included modeling and sediment budgets showing projected changes of the Project area, none of which support a finding that the shoreline will erode or retreat, or that the proposed dune walkover would be expected to interfere with public access to the shoreline. As set forth previously herein, the Project’s proposed design, location, and construction methods provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse impact to marine turtles, or the coastal system. The Applicants provided sufficient evidence of ownership, in that they are the upland owners and the recipients of the SSL Authorization, being addressed concurrently herewith. CCCL Permit - Ultimate Finding of Fact A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in this case establishes that the Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to the issuance of the CCCL Permit, meeting the standards established in chapter 161 and chapter 62B-33. CCCL Waivers The CCCL Waivers at issue affect the timing requirements of the submission of ownership and land use approvals. The CCCL Waivers do not waive the submission of the documents, or the requirement that the documents be provided prior to any construction of the proposed dune walkover. A preponderance of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the underlying purpose of chapter 161 and rule 62B-33.008, will be met because construction cannot begin until the Applicants satisfy all substantive requirements for the CCCL Permit. At the time the CCCL Waivers were requested, the Consolidated Permit was being litigated (DOAH Case Nos. 16-7148 and 16-7149), as was the Town’s denial of the land use letter requested by the Applicants to comply with the CCCL Permit application requirement. Strict adherence to the requirement that the documents at issue be submitted at the time of the application would have required the Applicants to sequentially litigate issues related to the proposed dune walkover, increasing the time and expense of litigation on all involved. Petitioners presented no evidence demonstrating how allowing the Applicants to submit the documents prior to being given a Notice to Proceed would adversely affect the Department’s ability to carry out the objective of the underlying statutes, or their substantial interests in ensuring the legality of the proposed dune walkover. The timing requirement for evidence of ownership and local government approval was appropriately waived to allow for the efficient and cost-effective litigation of all issues related to the proposed dune walkover. To piecemeal the litigation would unnecessarily increase the time, cost, and administrative burden of litigation for no meaningful or substantive reason, and would provide the challengers with an unwarranted litigation advantage. The CCCL Waivers affect no substantive or substantial interests of any party to this case. They neither lessen the necessary indicia of ownership and control required of the Applicants, nor affect the Town’s ability to lawfully enforce its local zoning codes. The waiver to the timing requirements allows for the substantive permitting requirements to be met, without frustrating the Applicants’ right to a timely final decision on the Consolidated Permit and CCCL Permit. The CCCL Waiver does not allow for any construction to begin without Applicants first meeting both the ownership requirement and the local government zoning confirmation requirement. Therefore, the CCCL Waivers are consistent with the purpose and intent of the governing statutes and rules, and result in no injury to Petitioners’ legitimate interests. CCCL Waivers - Ultimate Finding of Fact A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in this case establishes that the CCCL Waivers serve to avoid substantial hardship to the Applicants, and advance principles of fairness by maintaining a fair, equal, and cost- effective forum for litigation between the parties regarding the proposed dune walkover. As such, the Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to the issuance of the CCCL Waivers, meeting the standards established in section 120.542.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection; enter a final order approving the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 36-0320034-001 and Letter of Consent Easement to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands No. 360239365, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein; enter a final order approving the Permit for Construction or Other Activities Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, No. LE-1567, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein; enter a final order approving the Final Order Granting Petitions for Waivers, File No. LE-1567V; issue a Notice to Proceed authorizing the Applicants to commence construction of the proposed dune walkover; and dismiss the petitions for hearing filed by the Town of Fort Myers Beach in each of these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether 1800 Atlantic Developers is entitled to a DER fill permit and water quality certification for the creation of a sand beach, approximately 500' long X 100' wide, requiring placement of 2,620 cubic yards of fill, 2,200 yards of which would be waterward of mean highwater (MHW), off Key West, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Proposal By its initial application in April 1985, 1800 Atlantic proposed to place 4,100 cubic yards of fill (manufactured sand) along approximately 460 feet of eroded shoreline facing the Atlantic Ocean and fronting its 168-unit condominium (still under construction) in Key West, Florida. In connection with this project, 1800 Atlantic also proposed a 200 foot jetty at the east property line; a second and smaller jetty (if needed) at the west property line; a 400 foot long (10' high and 20' wide) fishing pier on the western property line; and a 50 x 50 foot art display platform seaward of the new beach. Approximately one and one-half acres would be filled of which 0.9 acres would be below the MHW line. The "proposed use" for the new beach was designated "private multi- dwelling." By affidavit Atlantic 1800 certified that it was record owner, lessee, or easement holder of the project site. 1/ (Atl.Exh.1) On May 7, 1985, 1800 Atlantic revised its application by submitting a new plan view to Teryl Kranzer, DER's field biologist. The modification tapered the beach fill into the shoreline toward the western property line and reduced the size of the westernmost jetty. (Atl.Exh.4) On May 10, 1985, DER sent a "Completeness Summary" to 1800 Atlantic, asking for additional information to complete the application. (DER Exh.5) On June 18, 1985, 1800 Atlantic responded to DER's Completeness Summary by submitting the additional requested information to Douglas L. Fry, Environmental Supervisor of DER's South Florida District. Revised drawings were submitted eliminating the east jetty from the project. The volume of beach fill material was indicated as 2620 cubic yards--420 above MHW, and 2200 below MHW. (Atl.Exh.5) On July 1, 1985, DER sent another Completeness Summary to 1800 At1antic seeking still more information to make the application complete. (DER Exh.6) t 20, 1985, 1800 Atlantic supplied the additional information and modified its proposal by eliminating the art display platforms the fishing pier and the west jetty. The beach fill was also modified by tapering the fill from the corner of the existing seawall at the east property line into the existing shoreline on the west property line. Total beach fill volume was shown as 2700 cubic yards--300 above MHW and 2200 below. The proposed dry beach extended 70 feet seaward (the June 18, 1985 submittal showed an 80 foot wide beach) and the toe of the fill extended 100 feet seaward of the MHW line. In response to DER's inquiry about public access, Edward Swakon, 1800 Atlantic's consulting engineer, stated: will be no provision made to assure perpetual public access to the project area. As we previously stated, the applicant has no intentions of prohibiting public access, however, you should be aware that the appli- cant is the owner of the submerged land and that no guaranteed public access is assured. (Atl.Exh.7) Mr. Swakon, on behalf of 1800 Atlantic, then addressed each of the permitting criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), though contending that they did not apply to the project: project will not affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others. On the contrary, as a result of this project the tax base of the City of Key West will be improved and therefore benefit the residents of the community. The beach fill will provide an added degree of protection to the upland development, thereby reducing the potential claims to the Federal Flood Insur- ance Program. In addition, the project provides a beach for 168 residents of the upland development and their many guests. This reduces the impact on the already over crowded public beaches in Key West. project will not adversely effect the conservation of fish and wildlife within the immediate vicinity. The area to be filled is devoid of significant vegetation. It is our opinion that the placement of this fill would result in an imperceptible impact to the marine resources. There are no endan- gered or threatened species or habitats located within the area to be filled. project will not adversely effect navigation, the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. On the contrary, the placement of this material will improve the overall shoreline conditions. The filling will not cause any erosion or shoaling in the vicinity. the fill area is barren, it is our opinion that this project will have no impact on fishing, recreational values and/or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. project will be permanent in nature will be no impact to historic or archeological resources. Id. t 26, 1986, DER received the August 20, 1986 submittal of 1800 Atlantic and the application became complete. r 5, 1985, the District Manager of DER's South Florida District in Fort Myers noticed his intent to deny the permit application. According to Douglas Fry, DER's supervisor of the District's dredge and fill section, the denial was based on information that he had received: I expected that the project would degrade both general water quality standards as established in the intent, including turbidity, biological integrity, transparency, other things noted as well as degradation of fish and wildlife standards as encompassed in part of the public interest requirements; I felt that the project would be contrary to the public interest. (Tr.546) the months that followed, 1800 Atlantic pursued the matter with various DER personnel, including Mr. Fry; Ms. Kranzer, the District biologist who performed the initial biological and water quality appraisal for the project; Steven J. Fox, Director of the Division of Environmental permitting, and William Hennessey, Deputy Director, both located in Tallahassee and supervisors of district permitting operations 2/ and Kenneth L. Echternacht, a DER hydrographic engineer in Tallahassee. Negotiations ensued, various modifications were proposed. Ms. Kranzer, the DER field biologist who had conducted the initial environmental evaluation in May 1985, and had recommended denial in September 1985, never submitted a new report evaluating the subsequent modifications, although she did discuss changes with other DER staff members. At the time she evaluated the project, it had already been modified once--cubic yardage had been reduced; the fishing pier, art platform and both jetties had been eliminated. t of negotiations between DER and 1800 Atlantic, DER reversed its initial position and, on March 27, 1986, gave notice of its intent to issue a permit for the revised project. The proposed permit incorporated changes agreed to by 1800 Atlantic. These changes required that the waterward 1/3 of the fill volume consist of coarse sand or sand aggregate no finer than 2mm in diameter; that approximately 10 percent of the sand range in size from 2mm to 6mm in diameter; and that 1800 Atlantic conduct a seagrass monitoring program for the duration of the permit. These changes were meant to resolve DER's concern that the fill material might migrate seaward and smother offshore seagrass beds. The area below the MHW line to be covered by the fill (approximately 1/2 acre) remained the same as indicated in the last drawings submitted by 1800 Atlantic on August 20, 1985. (Atl.Exh.7) l 1985, the City (of Key West) and the Coalition (Florida Keys Citizens Coalition) timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge proposed issuance of the permit. R had announced its intention to grant the permit, Mr. Fry, DER's District environmental dredge and fill supervisor continue to have concerns about the project: . . . I did not believe that the project still was clearly in a public interest, and that I did not see that the project had been modified enough to eliminate the destruction of aquatic habitat. I was concerned that the project did not encompass any mitigation to offset those, that damage. I was concerned that we had not received reasonable assurances that the project was clearly in the public interest. I was concerned that we had not received reasonable assurances that the beach fill would stay in place, thereby contributing to future degradation, and I had experienced some concerns regarding cumulative impact. (Tr.547) These concerns prompted representatives of DER and 1800 Atlantic to meet in Tallahassee on Friday, June 20, 1986. This was three working days prior to final hearing. Neither the City nor the Coalition were aware off or invited to, the meeting. s meeting, DER and 1800 Atlantic agreed to certain additional project modifications. One addition required construction of a small terminal jetty or groin on the western end of the project to stabilize the fill and replace rocky habitat to be covered by the fill. The specifications for this groin were not subsequently calculated or submitted at hearing. 1800 Atlantic proposes to "field engineer" the groin within these parameters: It would be designed to contain the fill or it would be designed in the field when the material was in place and would be designed with specifications that the rocks really didn't come any higher than the fill itself and would be adjusted so as to allow for some movement of sediment back and forth between it so as to minimize any down drift concerns that might exist. (Tr.121) l hearing, DER and 1800 Atlantic reduced this addition to writing as one of several proposed conditions to the DER permit. These conditions, ostensibly providing precision and specificity to the project changes described at hearing, were received over objection as part of DER's post-hearing Exhibit No. 7. The particular condition describing the groin-type structure to be built at the west end of the beach fill provides in pertinent part: Prior to construction of the beach fill, the permittee shall submit approximately dimen- sioned sketches of the structure, for review, modification as necessary, and approval by [DER]. (DER Exh.7) DER and 1800 Atlantic thus propose that specifications and drawings for this coastal structure be submitted, reviewed, and approved sometime in the future, after the requested permit is issued. The need for specifications is acknowledged, yet submittal and review is put off until after a permit is issued. Hence, detailed specifications for the structure remain unknown or ill- defined; scrutiny of those specifications by the City and Coalition is threatened; APA 3/ processes are frustrated. e which DER and 1800 Atlantic agreed to at the Friday meeting was to taper the toe of the fill on the western one-half of the fill area to more closely match the contour of the existing shoreline. 1800 Atlantic's engineer sketched this change, free-hand, while testifying at final hearing. Hence, it also remains ill-defined and uncertain. Like the groin, this change was reduced to writing and received as part of DSR post-hearing Exhibit No. 7. And like the groin, before construction but after the permit is issued, 1800 Atlantic is to submit a "fully dimensioned and scaled plan view of the revised beach fill limits for review, modifications as necessary, and approval" by DER. (DER Exh.7) The procedural shortcomings of such a procedure have already been noted. e which DER and 1800 Atlantic agreed to at the Friday meeting concerned off-site mitigation. As explained at final hearing, 1800 Atlantic would purchase an upland site equal in size to the area to be covered by the proposed fill and excavate it to tidal or subtidal elevations. (The upland mitigation site could be located as far as Big Pine Key (35 miles away) or elsewhere in the Florida Keys.) If this mitigation measure could not be accomplished prior to placement of the fill, a bond to assure its performance would be posted with DER. But this mitigation measure, when later reduced to writing and received as post-hearing DER Exhibit No. 7, became something quite different. The post-hearing exhibit specified that the upland mitigation site would be at least twice the size of (not equal in size to) the proposed one-half acre fill project. Moreover, the mitigation site was to be inspected and approved by DER prior to placement of the fill. If the mitigation site was not approved prior to filling, a bond (of unknown amount) would be posted to assure purchase and the excavation. With this condition, as with those already mentioned, critical features were left to future review and approval by DER, and so placed beyond the scrutiny of the other parties to this proceeding. The specific nature and location of this mitigation site is not known; neither is the amount of the bond to be posted if filling precedes mitigation. Whether the mitigation will, in fact, offset any loss of plant, fish, and wildlife habitat eliminated by the proposed fill is, likewise, unknown. Finally, the written condition, to the extent it doubles the size of the mitigation site presented at final hearing, is rejected as an unauthorized attempt to present new and additional evidence after the close of evidentiary presentation. (DER Exh.7) s other on-site mitigation measures were agreed to at the Friday meeting. As explained at hearing, algae-covered rocks within the fill area would be moved to a non- vegetated part of the submerged land; a Halodule grass bed within the fill area would be relocated waterward of the fill area; the toe of the proposed fill would be staked prior to construction; and fill placement would occur only during periods of low tide. When later reduced to writing as a post-hearing exhibit, these conditions generally conformed to their description at final hearing. Effect of Fill Project on Fishing or Recreational Values; Navigation; Marine Productivity; and Conservation of Fish and Wildlife t site is located on the southern shoreline of Key West on a narrow strip of beach known as Rest Beach, which includes a 2900 foot shoreline between Bertha Street to the east and White Street Pier to the west. The pier, a 950-foot long solid fill structure, is located 2400 feet west of the project site. Directly west of White Street Pier is another public beach (1400 feet long) known as Higgs Beach. With the exception of the submerged lands at the project site, to which 1800 Atlantic asserts titled all of the submerged lands adjacent to Rest Beach are publicly owned. (Atl.Exh.2-I; DER Exh.4) s at the project site are part of the navigable open waters of Hawk Channel and the Straits of Florida (Atlantic Ocean), designated by DER as Class III waters. On May 8, 1985, the waters in the area of the project (within the boundaries of the Florida Keys Special Waters), were also designated (by rule) as "Outstanding Florida Waters"--thereby imposing DER's most stringent level of protection from degradation of water quality loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and reduction in marine productivity. (Rule 17-3.041(4)(i); DER Exh.4) t site is bordered on the east by Bertha Street, which ends at a seawall facing the ocean. South Roosevelt Boulevard begins at the end of Bertha Street and parallels the shoreline east of the site. A public boat ramp is located on South Roosevelt Boulevard just east of Bertha Street. Just east of the ramp is a long curving jetty or groin at the southern end of a 3350-foot long public beach known as Smathers Beach. This public beach is within a few hundred feet of the project site. (Atl.Exh.6; DER Exh.4) o the west of the project site is an undeveloped parcel of land consisting largely of mangroves separated from the ocean by a sandy berm. Although the berm has been overwashed and tidal connections have opened in the past, no tidal connection was apparent at the time of final hearing. In some places the berm may have been artificially altered west of this undeveloped wetland site. Other residential condominiums are located on uplands to the west. d directly landward to the project site is a 168-unit, four story L-shaped condominium owned and developed by 1800 Atlantic. Recreational facilities, such as a swimming pool and club house, overlook the ocean. A third wing of the condominium (parallel to and abutting Bertha Street) was still under construction in July, 1985. s not the first time a permit has been sought to create or restore a beach at the site. In 1979, the trusteeship of Eugene J. Weiss, a 1800 Atlantic's predecessor in title, applied to DER for a similar "beach restoration" permit. He proposed to place (between groins to be constructed at opposite ends of the property) 1750 cubic yards of sand waterward of MHW and 2500 cubic yards landward. The approximate area to be filled was .59 acres waterward of MHW, .80 acres landward. Curtis Kruer then an environmental specialist with DER, performed a biological and water quality appraisal of the project and recommended denial because the fill would bury vegetated benthic communities that provide habitat and nutrients to marine organisms which, in turn, become a food source for a large number of juvenile fish and shellfish. He also was concerned about the short and long-term cumulative biological effects of a number of such projects on the shoreline of Key West. In April 1982, Eugene Weiss withdrew the application. (Coalition Exh. 3) s at the project site are shallows as the bottom slopes gently seaward. At mid-tide, depths of 1.5 feet are found 100 feet seaward of the MHW line. At low tide, the entire fill area is exposed. Even at high tide, water depths in the fill area range from zero (at MHW line) to approximately two feet at the toe of the fill. Because of the shallow depths, the fill project will have no significant adverse effect on navigation. (DER Exh.4; Atl.Exh.5) f stacked but unstabilized railroad ties separates the upland area (where the condominium and associated structures are located) from the beach slope. The narrow, graveled beach slope contains a mix of sand, rock, rubble and beach plants. Several distinct zones of seawrack are found on the beach slope: Thalassia at the lower portion of the beach face and Sargassum at the base. (Atl.Exh.15, 16) t 100 feet seaward of the MHW line, which includes all of the fill area, consists of small rubble embedded with calcareous sediments. The rubble consists of chunks of limestone rock and pieces of concrete less than two feet in size. Scattered among the rubble is anthropogenic debris such as bottles, asphalt and cast iron pipe. (Tr.130) f the limestone rock and rubble found on the submerged project site are residential lag from a fill at the site prior to or during the early 1960s. The boundaries and extent of the prior fill have not been established. It appears, however, to have consisted of a mix of carbonate particles ranging from silt and clay to the rocks, rubble and coarse sand now found on the project site. The fill material on site is what remains from the earlier artificial fill. e rock and rubble in the littoral zone provide attachment sites for various green, brown, and red algae such as Laurencia, Caulerpa, Cymopolia, Digenia, Batoptiora, Padina, Halimeda, Neomeris and Congia. These algal species play a positive role in the marine environment. The near shore contains a coarse sandy-shell substrate. (DER Exh.4; Atl.Exh.16) f seagrasses grow on, and immediately seaward of, the fill site. These include Cuban shoalweed (Halodule wrightii) and turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum). Some patches of seagrass are found as close as 30 feet from the MHW line. 4/ Approximately 95 feet seaward, cuban shoalweed becomes dominant; turtle grass coverage increases as one travels seaward from the site. Some cuban shoalweed patches are dense and healthy, with blades sometimes two feet in length. There is a patch of cuban shoalweed on the eastern portion of the project site. Although 1800 Atlantic has agreed to dig-up and transplant this seagrass to unvegetated portions of its property seaward of the toe of fill, the success of such a transplanting is not assured. Unvegetated bottoms can usually be explained by environmental factors. (DER Exh.4; Atl.Exh.16) s communities play a beneficial role in the marine environment. They provide habitat, feeding, and nursery areas for aquatic organisms. They supply primary nutrients as well as perform nutrient uptake and removal functions. The proposed fill would adversely impact the seagrass communities on the site--by smothering or burying any seagrasses not successfully transplanted. Moreover, the site, once converted to sandy beach for the use of owners and guests of the adjacent condominiums, could no longer support seagrass communities. r shore zone of seagrass and algal communities, adversely impacted by the proposed fill, constitutes a productive shallow water habitat that supports a variety of juvenile fish and crustaceans. These include hares, banded tulip shells, nerites, xanthid crabs, blue crabs, lizard fish, barracuda, parrotfish, killifish, needlefish, grey snapper, sergeant major, tomtates, hermit crabs, shore crabs and blue crabs. c macrofaunal species and diverse species of crustaceans live in the sediment of the in-shore rocky algae and seagrass communities. These species include Scyphoproctus, Notomastus hemipodus, Capitella capitata, Pulliella, Capitomastus, Capitellidae, Chaetozone, Tharvz annulosus, Caulleriella, Carilleriella bioculate, Glyceridae papillosa, Axiothella, Ceratonereis, Nereis Succinea, Nereis Rava, Nereis caudata, Onuphis magna, Protoariciinae, Proscoloplos, Cirrophorus lyriformis, Hasmineira elegans, Jasmineira bilobata, Fabricia, Augeneriella, Faebicola, Minuspio, Prionospio heterobranchia, Prionospio steenstrupi, Nerinides goodbody, Brania clavata, Exogone dispar, Exogone naidina, Odontosyllis, Sphaerosyllis labyrindiophia, Streptosyillis, Typosyllis hyalina, Typosyllis regulata, Typosyllis alternata, Typosyllis prolifera, Langerhansia cornuta, Langerhansia ferrugina, Syllida bansei, Terebella turgidula, Streblosoma hartmanae, Streblosoma abranachiata, Streblosoma, Pista palmata, Arca, Chjione caniculater, Tellina iris, Melita dintata, Elasmopus, Melito, Melita nitida, Rudilembordes, Dexamine, and Erichsonella filiformis. (Coalition Exh. 6) g at the site took place as recently as June 1986. Three petite ponar samples were taken in seagrass beds 150-160 feet seaward of the shoreline; three were taken in the rubble zone just seaward of the toe of the proposed fill; and two were taken in seagrass beds off nearby Smathers Beach. As measured by the Shannon Weaver Species Diversity Index, the level of species diversity in the rock rubble just seaward of the toe of fill was 2.19; in the seagrass beds farther offshore, 4.71; and in the seagrass beds off Smathers Beach, 4.76. A diversity of 4 is in the upper range of food habitat. Although diverse species of benthic organisms are found on the site, the level of diversity is substantially less than the high levels found in the thicker seagrass immediately seaward of the project site. (Atl.Exh.16) t Beach area (including the project site), provides a valuable habitat for migratory birds, wading birds, and shore birds. It is one of the last major stretches of uninterrupted shallow water bird habitat in Key West. Ms. Francis Hamer, a local resident and bird watcher for over 40 years, visits the area regularly. One of her favorite vantage points is on White Street Pier; from there, using a telescope, she observes birds feeding and wading along the Rest Beach shoreline. Although most of the birds she sees gather at the western end of Rest Beach, she has seen sandpipers, including the least sandpiper, twelve species of herons, including the yellow crowned night heron and the blue heron in the vicinity of the project site. When asked where would one go to see Sandpipers if the Rest Beach habitat was eliminated she replied, "I don't know of any other place in Key West." (Tr.645) Ms. Kranzer, the DER biologist, and Mr. Kruer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' biologist, have visited the site many times over the years and observed numerous wading and shore birds in the area. Ms. Kranzer photographed eight herons in the fill area at one time. 5/ Mr. Kruer has observed the little blue heron, the great egret, the cattle egret, the white ibis and the laughing gull, numerous shore birds. The proposed fill would adversely impact this valuable feeding ground for birds. The shallow algae and rubble zone, which supports the crabs and marine organisms which nourish bird life, would be replaced with beach sand. It is also likely that increased recreational use of the beach would drive off bird life. e many natural areas typical to the Florida Keys which, as DER and 1800 Atlantic contend, are more valuable than the project site in biological productivity, and as nursery and feeding grounds for fish, marine life, and wildlife. Nevertheless, this fact does not negate the substantial benefits which the site now provides to juvenile fish, crustacenas, benthic marine organisms, and bird life. l placement of the fill will have no impact on mobile organisms able to retreat to safer waters. Benthic and other organisms on the site which are relatively immobile would be destroyed by the fill. The number killed would be a relatively small fraction of the total of such organisms along the Key West shoreline, and their loss--alone--would not affect the marine environment to an extent which is quantifiable. Effects of the Proposed Fill on Water Quality Standards; Public Health, Safety or Welfare; Significant Historical and Archeological Resources; Endangered Species or their Habitats d project will not adversely affect public healthy safety, or welfare; significant historical and archeological resources; or endangered species or their habitats. (Neither the City nor the Coalition presented any affirmative evidence establishing adverse effect.) l the project degrade or cause violations of DER water quality standards for Outstanding Florida Waters. See Rules 17-3.051, 17-3.061, and 17- 3.121, Fla.Admin.Code. Turbidity will be minimal, since filling would take place at low tide and turbidity curtains will be used. The loss of algae at the site would not cause significant degradation of water quality. (Algae covered rocks would be moved outside the fill area.) c contends that water quality would actually be enhanced by the proposed fill. The seagrasses seaward of the site have beneficial effects on water quality, but their sediment beds are shallow. 1800 Atlantic contends that the finer particles of its fill material, dispersed by waves, would provide needed sediment to the offshore seagrass beds. This ostensible benefit is problematic. The study performed to support this contention did not sufficiently investigate or explain how seagrass beds beyond the reach of nearby beaches (and their sediment) could flourish. Dense and healthy seagrass offshore has not been shown to be endangered due to shallow sediment. It is clearly less than certain that just the right amount (too much would smother, too little would have no effect) of just the right kind of fill (only the fines are needed, not the large or coarser particles) would be delivered to offshore seagrass by natural forces. Impacts on Erosion, Shoaling and Sand Migration h and shoreline at the project site are relatively stable and in equilibrium; no greater erosion is occurring than at other unfortified shorelines in the Key West area. The coarse material and rubble that line the bottom of the site act as a "natural seawall" or armor which prevents or slows down erosion. (Tr.249) Removal of the existing rubble, as proposed, would eliminate this "natural armor." (Tr.260) e in the vicinity at the site faces south to south- southeast. This exposure is relatively windward with respect to winter storms. Gentle prevailing east to southeast winds, however, produce low-energy waves that approach the shore and generate longshore currents moving east to west. (Atl.Exh. 15) f a shallow limestone ridge offshore the Atlantic shoreline in Key West, waves reaching the shore are ordinarily well-dampened. Although subject to storm and hurricane attack by high energy waves, the southern shoreline is characterized as "low-energy." (Atl.Exh.15) vicinity of the project site on the southern shoreline, there is no natural onshore supply of sediments to beaches from offshore. The beaches at Smathers Beach and at the project site (which have been narrowed by erosion over the last 25 years) are artificial, composed of limestone fragments derived from quarries. The fill was placed at both beaches sometime prior to 1962. s have undergone gradual erosion. Fine sand and silt from the beach material is carried seaward, with no natural offshore sediment to replace it. The proposed fill will provide, at least temporarily, an added degree of protection to the upland development by widening existing upland between the condominium and the sea. It will not, however, prevent continued erosion. Over time, it too, will be dispersed by wave action and longshore drift to shorelines to the west. The fill would also temporarily stabilize the public sidewalk and street to the east of the site, currently being undermined. Protection of the public sidewalk and boat ramp from erosion, however, is part of public road maintenance duties. c has neither alleged nor shown that its upland condominium, still under construction, is endangered by erosion or high-energy wave action. Nor has it shown that there are no reasonable methods of supplying an "added degree of protection" to the upland development, methods not requiring elimination of productive habitat for fish, marine life, and wildlife. s net east-to-west longshore transport of sediment along the southern shoreline of Key West. Two groins at Smathers Beach (to the east) and the nearby public boat ramp have, to some extent, interrupted the normal longshore sand transport from the east. As a result, the effects of erosion are more pronounced on the eastern portion of the site, causing a shoreline "discontinuity." Although the proposed fill would partially eliminate this discontinuity, it has not been shown that the discontinuity is a serious problem. While it may trap floating debris, this was not a significant problem in July 1985, when Ms. Krenzer, the DER biologist, inspected the site. Moreover, the proposed groin near the west property line (to stabilize the fill material) would--in itself--add a new shore discontinuity, and may cause more discontinuity to the west if it interrupts the normal longshore movement of sand. (DER Exh.4) s finer than 200 microns tend to move in suspension, while grains finer than 40 microns cause turbidity. Grains coarser than 200 microns tend to move along the sea bottom when sufficient wave or current energy is present. Analysis of onshore and offshore sediment indicates that not much material coarser than 200 microns is moving offshore into seagrass beds seaward of the project site. Most of the material larger than 200 microns found in the seagrass beds is being produced there naturally. d that the proposed fill would migrate seaward and smother offshore seagrasses, seeks a condition (to which 1800 Atlantic has agreed) requiring that the seaward one-third of the fill volume consist of coarse sand no finer than two millimeters in diameter. The evidence is insufficient, however, to eliminate the possibility that constant wave action could gradually pulverize the coarse limestone into smaller particles that, when dispersed, could smother seagrass beds directly offshore and southwest of the site. 0 Atlantic has selected fill material with settling characteristics compatible with the existing beach material on site, placement should not cause an increase in turbidity. Although 1800 Atlantic posits that just enough of the fine sediments would migrate seaward to nourish grassbeds, leaving the coarse material to migrate westward by longshore drift, these results are not assured. Winter storms and high energy waves could remove and disperse even coarse material seaward or pulverize it into smaller particles for wider dispersion. Dispersion of the coarser sand to the west by longshore drift could result in shoaling which would block periodic tidal connections which occur between the sea and the mangrove covered wetlands. n structure toward the west boundary--designed to stabilize and hold the fill material in place--may contribute to erosion to the west by interrupting natural longshore transport. The wisdom of such an artificial structure ("field designed" on-site), which may interrupt the natural longshore transport of beach sands, is doubtful. Even 1800 Atlantic's own experts criticize it. y 1982, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a "Feasibility Report for Beach Erosion Control" with an accompanying Environmental Impact Statement. This report proposed a beach restoration program on the southern shore of Key West consisting of construction of a level beach berm, four feet above MHW and 100 feet wide along the 3,000 foot length of Smathers Beach; and a beach 25 feet wide along 2,370 feet of shoreline east and 3,400 feet west of Smathers Beach. 1800 Atlantic's proposed fill falls within the boundaries of this proposed beach restoration program. y is the local sponsor of the beach erosion control project described in the Feasibility Report. As late as August 1985, the Mayor of the City sent a letter to DER's dredge and fill supervisor confirming the City's continued support for the overall beach renourishment project. Although 1800 Atlantic suggests otherwise, the City's support of a comprehensive publicly financed beach restoration project along its southern shores (which presumably would assure public access to the restored beaches) is not necessarily inconsistent with its opposition to a relatively small fill project undertaken primarily for the private benefit of the owners, guests, and tenants of an adjacent condominium. h 1981, the Governor of Florida expressed written support for the Corps of Engineers' beach restoration project, but recommended that, in order to protect the marine environment, "any future beach renourishment be done in an environmentally sensitive manner. (Atl.Exh.19) The Governor's endorsement of the public beach restoration program does not, however, equate to his endorsement of the particular and more limited private beach project at issue. Even if it did, a gubernatorial expression of support cannot supplant DER's duty to exercise its regulatory authority in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1985). h fill project proposed by 1800 Atlantic was designed to be consistent with the overall U.S. Army Corps of Engineers beach restoration project described in the Feasibility Report. It should be noted, however, that the Corps project was criticized by federal environmental agencies for adverse impact on seagrass beds and fish and wildlife resources. (Atl. Exh.19, Appendix 3.) c has already received a coastal construction permit for its proposed project from the Florida Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"). This permit, however, was issued by another state agency exercising regulatory authority under a different statute, with different criteria for issuance. Cumulative Impact e no similar applications for beach fill projects in the Lower Keys pending before DER, although inquiries have been made by a nearby landowner. least the last two years, DER has not issued a permit in the Keys for a fill project similar to the one proposed by 1800 Atlantic. l may be placed on submerged lands (not previously conveyed to private ownership) without the consent of the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund--the owner of sovereignty lands. The Trustees have not approved an application to place beach fill on sovereignty lands in the Florida Keys for the last three years. Nor are there any pending applications for approval to do so. (As already noted, except for the project site, all remaining submerged lands in the Rest Beach area are publicly owned.) h serves as the staff for and makes recommendations to the Trustees, has a general policy of opposing the creation of unnatural beaches in the Keys on publicly owned submerged lands. As stated by Casey Fitzgerald, Chief of DNR's Bureau of State Lands Management: [Mr. Fitzgerald] A. So in a general sense, our recommendations would typically be negative, unless shown for some public interest purpose that it should be otherwise. Q. By that latter comment, do you mean, in connection with, for example, an overall publicly sponsored beach restoration project? A. That would be one example, yes. (e.s.) (Atl.Exh.20; p.8) Whether the Proposed Fill Would be Clearly in the Public Interest y for a DER permit, 1800 Atlantic must provide "reasonable assurance that the project will be clearly in the public interest." Section 403.918(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). In deciding whether a project is "clearly in the public interest," several statutory criteria must be considered and balanced. The issue though broadly phrased--is fundamentally a factual one, and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. 6/ Section 403.918(2)(a) Fla.Stat. (1985). d in light of the seven statutory criteria, it must be concluded that the applicant has failed to show that the proposed fill would be "clearly in the public interest." t should not cause violations of water quality standards or significantly degrade state waiters. Neither should it adversely affect (1) the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others; (2) endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; (3) navigation or the flow of water; or (4) significant historical material and archaeological resources. Nevertheless, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity. The site, which would be permanently covered with beach sand, now provides viable intertidal marine habitat and a feeding ground for migratory, shore and wading birds. It supports numerous species of juvenile fish and crustaceans, a diverse benthic and algae community, and patches of seagrass which benefit water quality and enhance the ecology of the marine environment. This shallow water habitat, gently sloping to the sea from an extended unfortified shoreline, is a diminishing resource in Key West. The existence of other submerged areas which are more biologically productive and support an even greater diversity of marine life do not diminish the positive value of the undisturbed project site to the marine environment. r adverse environmental impacts could occur. The proposed groin could cause increased erosion on property to the west by interrupting longshore sand drift. Shoaling could block tidal connections which periodically occur in the adjacent mangrove wetlands. Fill sands, pulverized and dispersed seaward by hurricanes or violent winter storms, could smother offshore seagrasses. y for the fill project has been shown. Though erosion has occurred over the last 25 years, the shoreline is stable, in equilibrium, and protected by a "natural armor" of coarse material and lag rubble. 1800 Atlantic has neither alleged nor asserted that the structural integrity of its upland condominium (still under construction) is threatened. The proposed fill would widen the upland between the condominium and the sea, providing an added degree of protection. While this benefits the upland structures, it is a benefit which would seemingly result whenever a fill project converts submerged land (seaward of a structure) to dry upland. Further, no necessity for an expanded private beach has been shown since there is a convenient 3000 foot public beach within a few hundred feet of the site. n measures proposed by 1800 Atlantic are insufficient to offset the known and potential adverse effects. These measures are vague, ill- defined, and uncertain. The design of the groin is left to "field engineering;" the adequacy of other mitigation measures is left to future review and decision by DER. The specific location and nature of the upland mitigation site (to be converted to submerged lands) is unknown, as is the amount of the bond to be posted if the beach fill project precedes mitigation. n expanded beach would provide recreational benefits to the owners, guests and tenants of the upland condominium, it has not been shown that similar benefits would inure to the general public. 1800 Atlantic does not guarantee that the public will have access to the beach. (It asserts only that any right of access which the public may have will not be infringed.) 1800 Atlantic's affidavit of ownership, which must be taken as true, asserts ownership of the submerged lands presumable by previous conveyance from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. It is entirely possible that 1800 Atlantic, as owner of the submerged lands and upland beach, could deny access to the general public. 1800 Atlantic has not shown that the general public has any existing right to enter upon and use the submerged lands and existing beach. By promising no greater access right than the public now has, and by failing to show that the public has any existing right to enter and use the submerged lands and shoreline, 1800 Atlantic has failed to demonstrate that its beach project would provide recreational opportunities to the general public. c benefit asserted by 1800 Atlantic is that the fill would eliminate an existing shoreline discontinuity, a discontinuity that has not been shown to be a significant problem. 1800 Atlantic would replace it with a new discontinuity created by a proposed groin at the west end of the property--a groin with uncertain effects on the shoreline to the west. Another claimed benefit is that needed sediment--of the correct quality and quantity--would be contributed to offshore seagrasses; but whether this would actually occur is uncertain. c also points out that its privately funded beach restoration project is consistent with and falls within the boundaries of a proposed public beach restoration project proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, supported by the Governor, and sponsored by the City. Any public benefit to be derived from this consistency is also doubtful. It was not shown that the Corps of Engineer's project involving Smathers Beach and Rest Beach has been finally approved and funded, or when (if at all) it would take place. Federal environmental agencies have pointed out the adverse environmental effects of such a project. A main benefit of the Corps project--expanded beach recreational opportunities for the general public--has not been shown to be a benefit which would result from 1800 Atlantic's fill project. , 1800 Atlantic has not affirmatively shown that, on balance, its proposed fill would be clearly in the public interest. The fill would have significant adverse environmental impacts--some certain, others possible. Measures offered to mitigate these impacts are vague, ill-defined, and inadequate. While benefits would inure to private upland owners, guests, and tenants, benefits to the general public are illusive or inconsequential. No necessity for the project has been shown, alternate methods of providing additional protection to the condominium may be available. A Corps of Engineers' beach restoration project for the entire area has been proposed and studied. While such a project would have adverse environmental effects at the 1800 Atlantic site, increased beach recreational opportunities would benefit the general public. 1800 Atlantic has not shown that its beach project would confer a like benefit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the application for a fill permit and water quality certification filed by 1800 Atlantic be DENIED, based on failure to provide reasonable assurances that the project is clearly in the public interest. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1986.
Findings Of Fact W. B. Johnson Properties, Inc., Petitioner, is the owner of the 428- room Holiday Inn Surfside located on Clearwater Beach. This hotel was constructed in 1981 on land zoned CTF-28 for commercial tourist facilities. The tract of land on which the hotel is situated is approximately ten acres and the maximum density of 42 rooms per acre is utilized. This hotel is currently in conformity with all building and zoning regulations. Holiday Inn Surfside has decking around its swimming pool which is capable of accommodating only 120 to 150 deck chairs for the guests of the hotel. Additional chair space, if needed, must be obtained by using the undecked area of the beach in front of the hotel. The occupancy rate for this hotel from the beginning of 1983 to date has been 80 percent. Petitioner owns the entire beach fronting its property, a distance of some 340 feet. Prior to the passage of Clearwater Ordinance No. 3075-83, the western setback line for this property was 50 feet from-mean highwater (MHW). Ordinance 3075-83 made the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), as established by Section 161.063, Florida Statutes, as the western setback line for property located on Clearwater Beach. This is now the Coastal Control setback line. The Coastal Construction setback line as it crosses Petitioner's property is 338 feet from MHW of the Gulf of Mexico. Prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 3075-83, Petitioner could have constructed decking up to the then setback line, 50 feet from MHW. Petitioner is one of the few property owners on Clearwater Beach that has undisputed ownership of the beach fronting its property seaward of the CCCL. This area of Clearwater Beach in the vicinity of Holiday Inn Surfside is the widest part of the beach between the CCCL and MHW. Exhibit 7, which was submitted as a late-filed exhibit, clearly shows the beach north of Petitioner's property is not as wide as is the beach fronting Petitioner's property, and much of the property on the beach south of Petitioner's property is owned by the City. Solely by having ownership of more beachfront property seaward of the CCCL, Petitioner is more adversely affected by Ordinance No. 3075-83 than are other property owners. Petitioner has signs restricting the use of the decking around the pool to hotel guests. Petitioner also has a patio bar in the vicinity of the pool which is accessible from the beach and from the hotel. Drinks are served to the public at this patio bar. By extending the deck 28 feet seaward of the OCCL, Petitioner would be able to provide decking for an additional 150 to 170 chairs for the use of hotel guests. With an 80 percent occupancy rate there is insufficient deck space to accommodate all of the hotel guests who desire to use these facilities. Currently the excess place their deck chairs in the sand seaward of the CCCL. Those who testified in opposition to the variance requested did so on the grounds that the increased deck facilities would bring more people to the patio bar, thereby increasing the traffic and parking problems on the beach, that the hotel did not adequately restrict the use of the existing deck to guests of the hotel, and that if this application is granted it will open the doors to others who would like to construct a deck seaward of the CCCL. None of these grounds is deemed particularly meritorious. Many factors could increase the patronage of the patio bar and more adequate decking would not be a significant one, particularly in view of Petitioner's contention that the deck was reserved for guests of the hotel, albeit not strictly enforced during periods of low occupancy.
The Issue In their prehearing stipulation the parties described the factual and legal issues remaining to be resolved as follows: Whether the Town of Palm Beach and Sierra Club have proved the allegations of standing set forth in the petitions filed in this cause. Whether the proposed project will cause a material physical effect on existing coastal conditions or natural shore processes. Whether The 2000 Condominium Association, Inc., is required or not required to undergo the permit review process of the Department of Natural Resources because of a factual finding or absence thereof of a material physical effect on existing coastal conditions or natural shore processes.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by all parties at the hearing The Applicant submitted a vegetation plan to the Department on June 20, 1989. The activities incorporated as part of the original plan submitted to the Department subject to Permit No. A PB-386 were revised by the Applicant on April 28, 1989 and June 19, 1989. By letter dated August 4, 1989, the Department notified the Applicant that a Department permit would not be required. The letter states that the proposed landscaping activity was not within the Department's jurisdiction. The Town of Palm Beach, Dave E. Darwin, The 2100 Condominium Association, Inc. at Sloan's Curve, The Residences at Sloan's Curve, Inc. and the Sierra Club filed Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings on or about August 24, 1989 regarding the jurisdictional ruling. Subsequently, 2100 and The Residences filed a voluntary dismissal. The Department of Natural Resources on September 19, 1989 entered its Final Order Denying Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. The Petitioners timely filed a Notice of Appeal in the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida. The appellate court upon reviewing the briefs filed by all parties and after entertaining oral argument entered an Opinion filed April 10, 1991. The Mandate from District Court of Appeal, State of Florida Fourth District issued April 26, 1991. By letter dated May 15, 1991, the Department of Natural Resources transmitted the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. The intended project proposes to clear part of the dune system of all exotic vegetation and cut such vegetation to four inches in height and apply an herbicide. The intended project also proposes to trim and maintain sea grapes on the dune at a height to three and one half feet. Additional areas on the dune are to be planted with other species of plants, which shall be irrigated. 1/ Facts based on the evidence at the hearing Facts regarding Sierra Club standing The members of the Loxahatchee Group of the Sierra Club actively and regularly use the beaches of the State of Florida. The Loxahatchee Group of the Sierra Club has approximately 2,000 members, about half of whom normally use and enjoy the beaches in Palm Beach County, Florida. At least 150 members of the Loxahatchee Group are actively involved in beach cleanup and preservation activities. The purposes of the Sierra Club are to explore, enjoy, and protect the natural and wild areas of the country, to educate people to be involved in that cause, and to use all legal means to achieve that end. Consistent with the purposes of the Sierra Club, a main objective of the Club is the preservation of beach-dune systems and the vegetation that grows on them. The Sierra Club actively pursues its goal of coastal protection. The Sierra Club has a national coastal protection committee on which Florida club members are active. The Sierra Club has a specific institutional interest in the laws of the State of Florida that seek to protect the resources of the state. The Sierra Club has an interest in any activity which will impact native plants and vegetation of special importance. If beach Beach County are materially degraded, the quality of the Sierra Club members' experience in using and enjoying the beaches will be degraded. Facts regarding the Town's standing The Town of Palm Beach owns Phipps Ocean Park. The park is part of a contiguous dune system which includes the geographical area of the proposed project. No similar dune system is found north of the proposed project within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Palm Beach. The dune system serves as productive habitat for native plant and animal species. Further, the dune system performs a shore and private property protection function. The Town of Palm Beach has for years taken an active interest in regulating activities of the nature proposed by The 2000 Condominium Association, Inc. To that end it has adopted a comprehensive plan and ordinances that address issues regarding activities that affect or are likely to affect the dune system. The Town of Palm Beach Building Department required that seawalls be placed along the west side of the dune system in conjunction with the construction of the majority of the condominium buildings in the Sloan's Curve area, including the 2000 Condominium buildings, from as early as the late 1970's. The reason for requiring seawall construction was to serve as secondary armoring in the event of the failure of the dune system. Findings regarding the 2000 Condo and its proposal The 2000 Condominium Association, Inc., ("the 2000 Condo") is the condominium association responsible for the maintenance, operation, and management of the condominium known as the 2000 Condominium in Palm Beach, Florida. The condominium common elements include a substantial part of the dune which is the subject of the 2000 Condo's proposed dune management program. Sand dunes in coastal areas store sand for the dune system and function as levees by affording protection from storm surges. The greater the amount of sand stored, the greater the potential for protection during storm events. The specific details of the 2000 Condo's proposed dune management program are as follows: Initial clearing of all exotics from the dune preservation line eastward. This list shall include but not be limited to Brazilian Pepper, Australian pine, St. Augustine grass, exotic scavolea, wedelia, ficus nitida, snake grass, mahoe, etc. Large exotics shall be brought down to 4" stumps and a systemic herbicide applied by drip wick to the stumps. Systemic Herbicide Garlon 4 is recommended. No herbicides shall be used past the initial treatment and first follow-up. The seagrape shall be trimmed to and maintained at 3 1/2' from grade at the dune preservation line, in the areas depicted by the permitted drawing. No trimming shall be done, without exception, eastward of the 25' line. Once the above steps have been taken, the open areas left along the dune shall be planted with material provided for on page 2. Areas of new planting shall have temporary irrigation until established. A heavy gaged plastic edger shall be installed at the dune preservation line for the entire length of the property to inhibit any sod from invading the dune. All trash and debris shall be removed and disposed of from the fore growth. Signs shall be installed prohibiting any activity between the sign westward to the dune preservation line with the exception of periodic removal of debris. The sign shall be installed per plans. Every 6 months exotics shall be hand pulled and removed from the dune as well as trash and debris. The plant material depicted on the plan shall be trimmed to 3 1/2' as called out by the permitted plan. Any material planted during Step 4 which has died will be replaced and watered until established. Periodic inspections shall be done to ensure proper management. A strip of lawn area approximately fifteen feet wide and eight hundred feet long separates the easterly edge of the condominium buildings from the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo. This long narrow strip is heavily maintained. Fertilizer is applied to it three or four times a year. The 2000 Condo has extensively watered the long narrow strip and the crest of the dune from its sprinkler systems. This watering and fertilizing has been a major factor contributing to the tall growth of the sea grapes closest to the long narrow lawn strip. The common element property owned by the 2000 Condo extends eastward (seaward) from the west edge of the long narrow lawn strip for a distance of approximately 50 or 60 feet. Therefore, the unit owners of the 2000 Condo own some of the dune which is not included within the twenty-five foot wide strip of the dune on which it proposes to implement its dune management program. The proposed program specifically provides that no trimming will be done eastward of the twenty-five foot strip in which the plan is to be implemented. Most of the vegetation on the crest of the dune consists of sea grapes, but there are many invader species among them, such as Brazilian Pepper, Australian Pine, and various vines, which are not indigenous to Florida. It was and has been the goal of the 2000 Condo to properly maintain the dune and keep it clean. In the early 1980's, when many of the owners acquired their condominium units at the 2000 Condo, even the ground floor units had a good view of the ocean. At that time most of the sea grape and invader species were only a few feet high. Now, the sea grape and the invader species have grown beyond the top of the second floor of the condominium, and they are also growing into and infringing upon the common element green space to the west of the crest of the dune. When owners look eastward from their first and second story apartments, they have virtually no view of the ocean. They see a solid row of sea grape running the length of the property. Because of the lack of the ocean view they once had and the close proximity of the terraces of the condominium units to the crest of the dune, many of the owners have ceased to use their terraces. During the early 1980's, sea grapes on the dune between the 2000 Condo buildings and the ocean were twice cut in violation of the Palm Beach County Code. Enforcement actions by the County were withdrawn as a result of an agreement by the 2000 Condo to replant five sea grapes for each one that had been cut down. In fulfilment of that agreement, the 2000 Condo planted approximately three hundred fifty sea grapes in 1985 or 1986, at a cost of about ten thousand dollars. It is these replanted sea grapes that are the source of most of the present controversy, because they have grown so high that they are blocking the view of the ocean from many of the units at the 2000 Condo. The tall sea grapes that are the subject of the proposed dune management program totally block any ocean view from the ground floor units at the 2000 Condo and partially block the ocean view from many of the units on the upper floors. The primary purpose of the proposed dune management program is to provide an unobstructed view of the ocean from all of the units at the 2000 Condo. The trimming of sea grapes to hedge or shrub height is a wide-spread practice in South Florida. Many other condominiums and private homeowners in the Town of Palm Beach, as well as the Town itself, up and down the Palm Beach County coast, have been trimming their sea grapes over the years, including sea grapes growing on or near the crest of the dune. Such trimming has not caused any damage to either the sea grape plants or to the dune. In the typical dune situation sea grapes growing at the crest of the dune (also known as the "scrub zone" of the dune) are typically bushes, rather than trees. In the typical dune crest situation, the forces of nature produce a more or less continuous pruning effect that causes sea grapes to tend to be short and bushy, rather than to develop into tall trees. Sea grapes are very adaptable plants and can prosper under a variety of circumstances. The conditions at the dune crest at the 2000 Condo are different from what would normally occur in nature from the natural forces of wind, salt air, frost, sun, and storms. The dune at the 2000 Condo is steeper than the typical dune. The sea grape and invader species growing on the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo are for the most part in excess of twenty feet tall, and at many locations are in excess of thirty feet tall. The anomaly is caused in part by the close proximity of the face of the multi-story condominium buildings just fifteen or so feet westward of the crest of the dune. The buildings affect the natural wind flow and, therefore, affect growing conditions at the crest of the dune. The tall growth of plants at the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo is also related to other man-made factors, such as extensive fertilization and watering. The natural vegetation growing there, if uninfluenced by man-made conditions, would normally be three to five feet in height. Therefore, the present size of the sea grapes growing on the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo is an unnatural condition. Implementation of the dune management program proposed by the 2000 Condo would create a situation that would more nearly resemble what one would have expected to find at a dune crest in the absence of man-made influences. Tall sea grapes on a dune crest are more vulnerable to being blown over in a storm than are shorter sea grapes. This is especially the case where, as here, the tall sea grapes lack the lateral support of other forest trees. If a 200 year storm were to occur, the large height of the sea grapes growing at the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo would not have any positive effect on the dune. The twenty and thirty foot sea grape trees would function more naturally if they were trimmed and maintained as shrubs. At shrub size they would still drop leaf litter and would still provide a habitat on the ground underneath the plants. The dune does not receive any advantage from the fact that the sea grapes are twenty to thirty feet tall. There is not much sand blowing around at the crest of the dune. Moreover, trapping sand is not typically a significant function of larger plants on the crest of the dune. In a major storm sand can be blown around at that height, but in the normal course of events 95 percent of the blowing sand occurs on the lower face of the dune. The sea grape is a type of plant that has an excellent ability to regenerate at the point of breakage or trimming. Frequent regeneration of broken, damaged, or frost-killed parts is a natural and continuing process for sea grapes due to the harsh environment in which they typically live. Sea grapes are genetically adapted to an almost continuous loss of buds, branches, and leaves. Sea grapes will survive massive trimming, will quickly regenerate, and will remain very healthy and vital. Trimming and maintaining sea grapes at three and one-half feet on the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo is not likely to adversely affect the health and vitality of the plants. Specifically, the plants are not likely to suffer any ill effects from sun scalding. Trimming and maintaining sea grape plants at three and a half feet on the crest of the dune at the 2000 Condo will cause some modification to the root system of the plants. However, the root system will quickly adjust and flush out. Roots that are no longer needed may atrophy and die and become part of the organic mass of the dune. New roots will be generated as the plant creates new leaves. The new roots will be more fiberous than the roots of tall sea grape plants. Low plants with more fiberous roots are more beneficial to the dune than tall plants with more elongated root systems. The dune management program proposed by the 2000 Condo is not likely to have any material adverse impact on either the dune processes, the dune ecosystem, the dune itself, or the vegetation growing on the dune. Implementation of that program will actually cause the subject area to be more nearly natural than it is now because it will result in plants of the size typically found at the crest of a dune, will increase the diversity of native plant species in the area, and will eliminate invader species currently on the site. Implementation of the dune management program proposed by the 2000 Condo is not likely to have any effect on any other property located in the Town of Palm Beach, or elsewhere. The Department of Natural Resources previously published and distributed written guidelines titled Guidelines for Preservation and Maintenance of Beach/Dune Vegetation. By memorandum dated May 23, 1989, those guidelines were withdrawn and use of the guidelines has been discontinued.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Adopting the foregoing findings of fact; Concluding that on the basis of the facts the Department of Natural Resources does not have permitting jurisdiction over the pruning activities proposed by The 2000 Condominium Association, Inc.; and Dismissing the petitions in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' application for a permit to construct a dwelling in Walton County, Florida, should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. In January of 1984, Respondent Department of Natural Resources provisionally denied Petitioners' application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct a dwelling on their property in Walton County seaward of the existing coastal construction control line. Petitioners requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), alleging that the denial of their application was unlawful on constitutional grounds and that it exceeded Respondent's discretionary powers under Chapter 161. The request for hearing was referred by Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 84-0508. Thereafter, Respondent's motion to strike those aspects of the petition alleging the unconstitutionality of the proposed denial was denied on the basis that Petitioners properly may preserve such matters for any appellate review. Thereafter, Petitioners sought to amend their petition to allege the invalidity of certain of Respondent's rules and, although such petition was granted, Petitioners were informed that any administrative determination of the invalidity of rules must be made the subject of a separate petition filed with the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 11, 1984, Petitioners filed a petition with the Division challenging the validity of certain of Respondent's rules which were cited by Respondent as the basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application for a permit. The petition alleged that said rules were not appropriate to the ends specified in Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, that the effect of the rules was to establish a class of property owners who could be excluded from receiving permits to construct dwellings seaward of the coastal construction control line merely because their lots or parcels of land are larger than their neighbors or other adjacent owners, and that such rules are arbitrary and capricious as they relate to the petitioners because other property owners in Walton County had been permitted by Respondent to construct dwellings similar to hat proposed by the Petitioners beyond the coastal construction control line. DOAH Case No. 84-0508 and the case involving the rule challenge, DOAH Case No. 84-2053R, were consolidated for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Brett Moore, a coastal engineer employed by the DNR Division of Beaches and Shores, Dennis Evans, an architect, and Petitioner Edward S. Coley. Petitioner submitted ten exhibits in evidence Respondent presented the testimony of Brett Moore, Deborah Flack, Director of the Division of Beaches and Shores, and Ralph Clark, Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation. Respondent submitted 21 exhibits in evidence. Posthearing submissions submitted by the parties in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact In 1981 Petitioners Edward S. Coley and his wife, Juanita P. Coley, purchased lot 8, block A, Camp Creek Lake Subdivision, in Walton County, Florida. The lot is located on the beach at the Gulf of Mexico in a platted subdivision. Petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of building a beach house that would eventually be a retirement home. (Testimony of E. Coley, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1). At the time Petitioners purchased the lot, there were a number of existing dwellings to the east of the lot and several to the west. The habitable portions of these dwellings for the most part were located at or near the existing coastal construction setback line that had been established by Respondent in 1975 to provide protection to the dune area of the beach. Although Petitioners planned to locate their two-story dwelling approximately on the then-existing setback line, they had not done so at the time a new coastal construction control line was established in December 1982, which resulted in moving the setback line further landward for a distance of some sixty two feet. The county coastal construction control lines are established under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and are intended to define the portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge. Construction seaward of the line is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from Respondent. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, 5, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 20). On September 19, 1983, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to construct a 2000 square foot two-story house on their lot. The dwelling was designed to have upper and lower decks facing the Gulf, with a dune walkover structure seaward, and a three-car garage attached to the main house by a breezeway. As planned, the seaward extent of the habitable portion of the house would be located some eight feet landward of the old setback line and approximately 62 feet seaward of the existing construction control line. After processing the application, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation advised Petitioners by letter dated January 5, 1984, that a staff recommendation to deny the application would be presented to the head of the Department, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, on January 17, 1984, and advising Petitioners of their rights to a Chapter 120 hearing. By letter of January 11, 1984, Petitioners did request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., and, on January 17, Mr. Coley appeared before the Governor and Cabinet to support approval of his application. On March 20, 1984, the Governor and Cabinet approved the minutes of its January 17th meeting wherein the apparent basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application was stated as follows: The staff is concerned that the applicant is not effectively utilizing the property landward of the control line and that the proposed encroachment is unnecessary and not justified. Prior to the preparation of the structural plans, the staff recommended a 25 foot landward relocation of the structure in order to more effectively utilize the property landward of the control line and provide an effective, protective setback from the active dune area. Presently, there exists approximately 85 feet between the landwardmost portion of the proposed garage structure and the landward property line. The recommended 25 foot landward location represents a compromise that acknowledges the line of existing construction in the immediate area. . . . * * * Dr. Gissendanner stated that this was the first building permitted in this area. All the other buildings there had been built before a permit was required. Now it was necessary to take into consideration the new coastal construction line and the accumulative effect which the new law imposed. The problem was that the Department did not want to start a precedent to allow the house to be built out there and have other people come in and want to build along the same line. By letter of September 29, 1983, Respondent had advised Petitioners that any structure of the size proposed by Petitioners located within the dune region would adversely impact and limit the extent of dune recovery following severe erosion associated with a major storm event. The letter proposed a compromise in location of Petitioners' dwelling to a point approximately 25 feet landward of the desired location, thus placing the seawardmost portion of the habitable structure approximately 35 feet seaward of the construction control line. This was stated to be a viable compromise since there existed sufficient room to locate the entire structure, including garage, landward of the control line. Petitioners however declined to accept such a compromise in the belief that to do so would eliminate any view of the Gulf over the dune line except from the upstairs deck of the proposed structure. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-2, 9, Respondent's Exhibits 1-8, 13-16). The height of the dune line on Petitioners' lot is approximately 27 feet high, which is the same elevation as the first floor of the proposed dwelling at the desired site. The proposed second floor would be 9 feet above the crest of the dune. However, if placement of the structure was moved landward 25 feet, it would be impossible to see over the dune area from the ground floor of the house. Additionally, the view of the beach area would be obstructed by the homes to the east and west of Petitioners' lot. The proposed dwelling is designed for the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. Under dead covenants and restrictions, a variance would have to be obtained to build a taller structure. The value of Petitioners' property would undoubtedly be diminished to come extent if the house was built substantially behind the adjacent dwellings because of the restricted view of the beach and water area. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 8). Although there would be no adverse impact on adjacent properties if Petitioners were permitted to build in the desired location, such proposed siting could have an adverse impact on the dune system as a result of a major storm event since the dwelling would be located on the seaward edge of existing vegetation at the landward toe of the dune. If the location were to be moved 25 feet further landward, there would be additional vegetation to facilitate recovery of the system after such a storm. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation also believes that the existing structures in that area would be demolished as a result of a major storm, but Petitioners' house, which is designed to withstand a 100-year storm event, would remain, thus impeding full recovery of the dune system. (Testimony of Moore, Flack, Clark, Respondent's Exhibits 9-12, 19, 21). Respondent has permitted several structures in the past which were located seaward of the coastal construction control line, but these were approved because the impact on the dune system was minimized in those locations, and also because the applicants had utilized all of the upland property possible on their lots. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 3-4, 6-7, 9-10). Although conflicting evidence was received as to whether or not the existing structures east of petitioners' lot constitute a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," it is found that although minor variations exist in the location of individual dwellings, they do meet the quoted statutory standard set forth in Section 161.053(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The existing structures have not been affected by erosion. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Moore, Flack, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Petitioners' structural design meets Respondent's technical requirements subject to standard conditions of the Department. (Testimony of Moore, Evans, Flack, Petitioners' Exhibit 2). The Departmental rules cited by Respondent as the authority for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application are Rules 16B-33.05(1), (2), (6), 33.06(2), and 33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4).
